Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

DISTURBANCE, BANGALORE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received full reports of the circumstances leading to the police opening fire on a students' demonstration in Bangalore on 25th October; whether any of the 60 wounded have since succumbed from their wounds; and what other methods of restraining unarmed crowds of this description, other than firing, were tried?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lord Stanley): The incident, which arose out of the arrest of Mr. Nariman for disobeying an order prohibiting him from speaking, occurred in Mysore State. I understand that eight persons suffering from gunshot wounds, of whom one is reported to have died, and 73 other casualties, of whom about half were policemen, were treated in hospital. It would appear that every attempt was made to persuade the mob to disperse and the police fired only in self-defence in the last resort.

Mr. Gallacher: As these continual shootings may occur time and time again, is it not possible to develop some policy which will ensure regular progress so far as these people are concerned, instead of regular shootings that result in death and mutilation?

Lord Stanley: Shooting is resorted to only in self-defence after every other effort has been tried. If there is any other means of carrying out the purpose without shooting, the police would be only too pleased to use it.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government that he represents can always find means of coming to an amicable settlement with the aggressive Powers who have guns and tanks? Are we to understand that these people are not entitled to some consideration?

Mr. Kirkwood: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that every other means had been tried before they started shooting?

Lord Stanley: All other means of peaceful persuasion.

INCOME TAX ADVISER.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what were the special qualifications of Mr. S. P. Chambers, recently appointed from England as Income Tax Commissioner for India at Rs.2,500 to Rs.3,000 per month, or four times his salary in this country; whether he is aware of the resentment which exists in India about this appointment when many other experienced and suitable candidates are available in India at a considerably less salary; and whether some more satisfactory method of appointment can be adopted?

Lord Stanley: The Government of India recently created a post of Income Tax adviser to the Central Board of Revenue. His functions, besides advising the Board on technical matters, will be to inspect and co-ordinate the work of the various income Tax offices throughout India, with a view to the introduction of improvements and up-to-date methods. The Government of India decided that, in the special circumstances, the best course would be to borrow an officer for three years from the Board of Inland Revenue. Mr. Chambers has had considerable practical experience as an inspector of taxes in this country and was a member of the expert committee which recently conducted an examination of the Indian Income Tax system. The Government of India are satisfied that there was no officer immediately available in India possessing the qualifications considered necessary for the appointment.

Mr. Creech Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong feeling that has been expressed in respect of this


appointment, and that it has been the subject of very considerable criticism in the Indian Press?

Lord Stanley: I would assure the hon. Member that this particular appointment requires special technical qualifications, and I am convinced that the Government of India have made the best choice that they could.

AIRCRAFT SQUADRONS.

Mr. Day: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of fullyequipped aircraft squadrons at present m India, and the number of squadrons that are at present in the North-West Frontier Province?

Lord Stanley: The fully equipped aircraft squadrons in India are as follow:
4 Bomber Squadrons,
4 Army Co-operation Squadrons,
½ Bomber Transport Flight,
also 1 Squadron Indian Air Force now forming at Karachi.
The squadrons at present in the North-West Frontier Province are:
4 Bomber Squadrons,
1 Army Co-operation Squadron,
½ Bomber Transport Flight.

Mr. Day: When the Under-Secretary says that these aircraft squadrons are fully equipped, does he mean that they are equipped for all general purposes?

Mr. Kirkwood: What are these squadrons doing on the North-West Frontier? Have they bombs and, if so, are they bombing anybody?

Lord Stanley: They are assisting the troops in keeping order on the North-West Frontier.

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER (MILITARY OPERATIONS).

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement on the recent operations on the North-West frontier of India and on the present position?

Lord Stanley: The operations in Waziristan up to 5th June, when a suspension of hostilities was granted to the Tori Khel, were described in the White Paper, Cmd. 5495. In August and September the jirgas (tribal assemblies) of the sections which had been most prominent

in the disturbances—the Mahsud sections and the Tori Khel—accepted the peace terms announced to them. These include fines in rifles and in money and the extension of the areas under British protection. Since June the action of small gangs of irresponsible tribesmen, who are not controlled by the tribal authorities, against our troops engaged in road protection and road building, has resulted in several minor engagements and the movements of columns into some of the more inaccessible areas with the object of breaking up these gangs. The Faqir of Ipi is still at large. It is hoped, however, that as the winter advances, the season will restrict the activities of the remaining hostiles. As part of the settlement with the tribes an additional road-making programme is now in hand in part of the country which has hitherto been inaccessible. This should help greatly towards pacifying and improving its economic condition, though it entails the temporary retention of a considerable number of troops in the area over and above the normal garrisons.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will the Under-Secretary consider a greater measure of publicity for these brilliant exploits in order to help to re-awaken some measure of pride in our very slender military forces?

Mr. Gallacher: Are not these "brilliant exploits" the driving of people off their own land?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (AIR BOMBING).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House about the attitude adopted by His Majesty's Government's representative on the sub-committee of 10 when the resolution on air bombing was being considered at the last meeting of the League Assembly?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I do not know what the hon. Member means by the reference to the sub-committee of 10. I understand that it was not concerned with the resolution on air bombing. The representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on the Advisory Committee took the initiative in urging that the committee should express its view with regard to air bombing and voted


for the committee's resolution on the subject, which was subsequently adopted by the Assembly.

Mr. Smith: Is it the fact that when that draft resolution was first submitted the British representative took exception to the word "Japan" being included in the resolution, and, if so, is that in conformity with the policy that is being pursued by the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Eden: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is referring to what took place in a private committee. Whatever other people say about private committees, I do not propose to make a statement about them.

Mr. Thorne: In view of what is going on in Japan and in Spain, does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is any possibility of doing away with bombing altogether?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have been made by his Department to collect and assess the claims by British subjects in the international settlement in Shanghai for compensation for damage suffered by reason of the hostilities between China and Japan?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai has been instructed to receive and file such claims. They are examined and assessed by him so far as may be possible at the time and are amended subsequently if necessary. Preliminary lists are compiled and communicated to the local Chinese or Japanese officials and detailed statements are made out later for presentation by His Majesty's Government to the Governments concerned.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the progress so far made in the Nine-Power negotiations at Brussels?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir; the position at the moment is that the conference, in a note the terms of which are published in this morning's Press, has invited the Japanese Government to let the conference know as quickly as possible whether the Imperial

Government would be disposed to depute a representative or representatives to exchange views within the framework of the Nine-Power Treaty with representatives of a small number of Powers to be chosen for that purpose in order that the settlement of the present conflict may be facilitated.

Mr. Adams: Is there any time limit set for the Japanese answer?

Mr. Eden: Not in the conference resolution.

Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that in consequence of the tri-partite Pact Japan will be prevented from attending the conference?

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Are the United States to be included in the smaller group?

Mr. Eden: The composition of the small group is under discussion at the conference now. As at present arranged, I am returning to Brussels to-morrow morning for the purpose of taking part in the further stages of the conference.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Secretary. of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement with regard to the rescue by British soldiers of Chinese refugees?

Mr. Eden: I have received no report from His Majesty's representatives in China on this subject, though I have seen references to it in Press messages from Shanghai.

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what compensation is to be paid to the widow of Private McGowan, of the Royal Ulster Rifles, who was killed in Shanghai; and if any contribution is to be ma de by the Japanese Government towards the cost of same?

Mr. Eden: Private McGowan, of the Royal Ulster Rifles, did not leave a widow, but claims to compensation by certain other relatives are at present under examination by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. As I have already stated in the House, the Japanese Government have expressed readiness to make compensation in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Brazil has repudiated her contractual obligations four times on many millions of loans of British savings and has imposed default schemes on British creditors without their consent; will he appoint an official to represent British creditors in discussions about any new scheme of extended Brazilian default, as the houses who issued the Brazilian loans and the Council of Foreign Bondholders have failed to persuade Brazil to honour her obligations upon the loans in question?

Mr. Eden: As I stated in the answer which I gave my right hon. Friend on 12th July last, the position is that while His Majesty's Government are ready to give any help that is practicable, they would only be prepared to act if requested to do so by the authorised body, the Council of Foreign Bondholders.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his Department has yet come to any conclusion regarding the identity of the aeroplane which bombed and sank the British steamer "Jean Weems"; and, if so, will he say what this conclusion is?

Mr. Eden: The aircraft concerned belonged to the insurgent forces. As a result of the representations which were made to the Salamanca authorities by His Majesty's Ambassador at Hendaye in connection with this incident, the former have undertaken to express their official regret and to give an assurance that orders will be given to their forces to take all possible precautions against further incidents of this nature. They have, furthermore, agreed, so far as liability and payment of compensation are concerned, to submit the case, if necessary, to arbitration and to abide by the result.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in addition to identifying the aeroplane, any investigations have been made as to the identity of the pilot, because he will know that I put a question on this matter as to the pilot last week?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I have given the House all the information in my possession, and I think the House will agree that, in unsatisfactory conditions, it is a satisfactory answer.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the attack was deliberate or accidental? May I press for an answer, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Eden: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman in the process of making inquiries, ascertained whether, in fact, it was deliberate or accidental?

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to express an opinion, perhaps he will be good enough to put down a question?

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: With a view to the prevention of cases of this kind, can any steps now be taken to prevent foreign volunteers sailing to Spain with munitions under the British flag?

Mr. Eden: That is another question, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will be good enough to put it down.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the recent arrival of Italian troops in Spain from Spanish Morocco?

Mr. Eden: My attention was drawn to a rumour which was current during September of the arrival at Melilla of a considerable force of Italian troops en route for Spain. I gave instructions that inquiries into this rumour should be instituted on the spot; and received a report that it was without foundation.

Mr. Strauss: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information in regard to the announcement made in wide sections of the Press that during two or three weeks recently Italian forces have arrived at Malaga from Libya?

Mr. Eden: That is another question.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Are not wide sections of the Press generally wrong in this matter?

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information has been conveyed to the NonIntervention Committee as to the amount and value of munitions and foodstuffs exported by Germany and Italy to Spanish territory under the control of General Franco during the last 12 months; and whether, in the absence of such information, he will request the German and Italian Governments to supply it?

Mr. Eden: I understand that the NonIntervention Committee have received no definite statistics in regard to the supply of munitions by Germany and Italy to Spanish territory under the control of General Franco. I would point out that the export of foodstuffs to Spain does not come within the scope of the Non-Intervention Agreement. If the hon. Member wishes to know the published figures of Italian and German trade with Spain I will try and obtain them for him.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is possible for the Non-Intervention Committee to assess the extent of the intervention in the absence of definite statistics, and will he be good enough to say why in a recent speech he used figures of exports from Soviet Russia to Republican Spain and failed to give comparable figures of exports from Germany and Italy to Spanish territory under General Franco?

Mr. Eden: What I gave were the figures made public by the Soviet Government. I am quite willing to obtain and make known the published figures of Germany and Italy.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations have yet been started between representatives of His Majesty's Government and of General Franco for the purpose of establishing semi-consular representation of Great Britain in the territory now under the control of the latter; whether such representation is intended to be reciprocal; and whether it foreshadows any move towards de jure recognition of the Franco administration?

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a trade agreement is being negotiated with the insurgent authorities in Spain; and, if so, whether such an agreement will include the exchange of consuls?

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reason for the sudden withdrawal of the promise given by the Spanish insurgents that the British ships held by them should be released; whether this is connected with the recent sinking of the "Jean Weems"; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take about the matter, in view of the fact that after lengthy negotiations the ships now appear to be further from release than they were on 3rd November?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government were consulted concerning the decision to exchange agents with General Franco or were only informed of a decision to do so?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the date of the Government decision to appoint a representative to the Government of General Franco in Spain; and why the Government's intention to make this appointment was not disclosed to the House earlier?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Members will he good enough to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of questions in answer to a private notice question asked by the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a full statement on the Government's decision to enter upon negotiations for the appointment of agents by the Government and by General Franco respectively, for the discussion of questions affecting British nationals and commercial interests; indicating, if they have been appointed, who the British agents are to be; what their particular status will be; whether, in the event of these agents having occupied diplomatic posts in the past, these new appointments are to be regarded as reductions in status; whether the French Government or any other Government is taking similar action; and what steps, if any, are being taken to maintain like contacts within the territory held by the lawful Government of Spain?

Mr. Eden: In deference to the wish expressed by the Leader of the Opposition


last Thursday, I will, with the permission of the House, make a fuller statement than is perhaps customary on such occasions.
In the Government's view the step which they now propose to take is essential for the proper protection of British commercial, industrial and financial interests in that part of Spain which is under the Control of General Franco. These territories include two-thirds of continental Spain and practically all her overseas territories. Without including the Canary Islands or the Spanish zone of Morocco, there are many million pounds sterling of British capital invested in this area. The greater part of this is in respect of iron ore, copper and lead mines and the sherry industry. In addition, in normal times a considerable part of our total Spanish trade is carried on with the same area which, I may mention, takes large quantities of coal from South Wales.
All these interests have inevitably suffered, in a greater or less degree, from the existenc of the civil war. In that area, no less than in the area under the control of the Government at Valencia, war conditions have resulted in a large measure of interference by the Spanish authorities with British, in common with other foreign undertakings. As the war developed all these difficulties became more and more acute. This situation inevitably called for direct negotiations with the authorities at Burgos or Salamanca. But the machinery for that purpose was lacking. At neither of those places— towns of no sufficient importance in normal times—had we any representative. The only career Consuls in General Franco's territory were stationed at the ports, and only as a result of the occasional visits paid to Burgos (about 150 miles away) or to Salamanca (over 300 miles away) by the Commercial Secretary to His Majesty's Embassy at Hendaye and the personal contact thus established could any progress at all be made. But this occasional and fortuitous contact was wholly inadequate. In the matter of contact with the insurgent authorities His Majesty's Government have throughout the past year been at a greater disadvantage than any other Power having large interests in that part of Spain. It became increasingly clear that an end must be put to this unpre-

cedented state of affairs, and that some machinery must be set up by which each side could give proper attention to matters common concern to both of them. It would have been possible to transfer to Salamanca or Burgos consular officers with special experience of commercial and financial questions. But the appointment of new Consuls with commissions from His Majesty the King and the grant to them of an exequatur by the authorities at Salamanca would have implied a measure of recognition of these authorities.
After mature consideration the Government came to the conclusion that the situation could best be met by an exchange of agents. The duty of the agent appointed by His Majesty's Government will be the protection of British subjects and the protection of industrial and trade interests throughout this area. As the Prime Minister has already stated, negotiations have been entered into with this object in view. In addition to these agents, sub-agents will be appointed at a limited number of places to be agreed upon between the two parties. The reception of such an agent in London will not in any way constitute recognition by His Majesty's Government of the authorities of the territories under the control of General Franco, and neither party will accord or expect to receive diplomatic status for their agents. No appointment to the post of British Agent has yet been made.
Before giving final approval to this proposal, His Majesty's Government have insisted upon a satisfactory settlement of two points in regard to which no progress had so far been made. I refer to the seven ships until lately detained at Ferrol or elsewhere and to two cargoes of British-owned iron ore which, during the summer, were confiscated. Satisfaction has been obtained. Orders have been given for the release of all these ships and, as the House was informed last week, some have already left Spain. Orders have also been given for an equivalent amount of iron ore to be placed at the disposal of His Majesty's Embassy at Hendaye.
I have already said that the arrangement is to be concluded upon a basis of strict reciprocity. This reciprocity must logically include freedom for the agents and sub-agents to exercise, in the same


way as consular representatives, all the normal functions of Consuls in relation to matters of commerce and navigation. To the extent, therefore, that our agent and sub-agents are allowed to exercise such functions in Spain, the agent and sub-agents of General Franco will be permitted to exercise similar functions in this country.
The House will appreciate that this is a matter which essentially concerns British commercial interests. The French Government were, however, informed of our intentions.
In reply to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, diplomatic contact with the Spanish Government will continue to be maintained as at present by His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Valencia, who will shortly be moving to Barcelona.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the whole of the business of non-intervention is not also concerned very closely with trade relations and relations between nationals of this country and Spain, and why there has not been consultation with other Powers concerned in this matter?

Mr. Eden: If the right hon. Gentleman means to inquire why we have not raised this matter in the Non-Intervention Committee, he will perceive that there would be little service in doing that when some of the Governments have already recognised General Franco as the Government of Spain, while others continue to recognise the Government at Valencia.

Mr. Attlee: I am asking whether we have conferred with the French Government in particular on this matter; I was not referring to those who are actively intervening.

Mr. Eden: As I have told the House, the French Government were informed of what we intended to do. If the right hon. Gentleman means to inquire whether I asked the French Government whether they agreed, the answer is in the negative. I would not have expected the French Government to ask me a question of that sort. I have had no representations of any kind from the French Government against the steps which are being taken, although we informed them of it some time ago.

Mr. Attlee: Is there any precedent for sending agents of this kind to rebels who have not been given recognition as belligerents?

Mr. Eden: Yes, I think there is. I think that there is a precedent in the case of General Venezelos in Greece, but I would remind the House that it would be very difficult to find a precedent for withholding belligerent rights for so long.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Will the former precedents, such as that in the American Civil War and the Chinese Civil War, be followed in which belligerent status was recognised; and will the political agents who are sent to Spain be under the orders of the Ambassador accredited to the legal Government of Spain?

Mr. Eden: Yes, it is our present intention that that should be the position. I am informed that there were actually no agents in the American Civil War, but as to the general position now, it is our intention that the agents should be under the general direction of His Majesty's Ambassador to Spain.

Mr. Maxton: Does that mean that they will also be under the direction of the Chargé d'Affaires at Barcelona?

Mr. Eden: That is obviously not practicable.

Mr. Maxton: Is it not more practicable for them to be responsible to the official who has been able to remain in Spain during the whole time rather than to one who has been absent all the time?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is a little difficult to satisfy. When I try to arrange a contact, he criticises it.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether, in view of the importance of this statement, the Government can give time this evening by moving the Adjournment at a convenient hour in order that it may be discussed?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I should not have thought that any further discussion was necessary after the very full statement which my right hon. Friend has made, but if the House desires it, I think that it can be arranged.

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the Foreign Secretary is occupied and has to go back to Brussels; and in view of this very grave departure from what has previously been done, the


House should have an opportunity of discussing it, which it did not have on the previous occasion.

The Prime Minister: I do not want that to be made a grievance, but if the right hon. Gentleman presses it, I will arrange for the Adjournment to be moved to-night at some convenient interval in the business, say, some time about 8 o'clock. The exact time can be arranged.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Foreign Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: If it is on the same subject, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it is to be discussed to-night.

Mr. Gallacher: I understand that we are to discuss the question that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, but the Foreign Secretary informed me that he would answer my question at the conclusion. I am now dealing with my question. I want to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he is aware that Guest, Keen & Nettlefold hold the majority of the shares in some of these iron works, and that several Cabinet Ministers nave interests in Guest, Keen & Nettlefold; and is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to have a referendum of the people on this question before this criminal policy is dealt with any further? A whole bunch of these people are interested.

Mr. Speaker: I see nothing about this firm in the Question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXTRADITION TREATY, GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the present Extradition Treaty between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government is to be extended to include Abyssinia; and whether any negotiations to This end are proceeding?

Mr. Eden: There have been no negotiations of the nature indicated in the question, and no such extension is contemplated at present.

Mr. Day: Does the present Treaty contain an optional clause for the surrender of each country's nationals?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

22. Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Pensions the number of parents' pensions payable in respect of sons lost in the Great War that have been transferred to the surviving parent during the past 12 months, and the number that were in suspense for two, four, six and over eight years, respectively, before re-issue; and whether he will give instructions that on the death of a parent in receipt of a flat-rate or dependant's pension the surviving parent shall be notified that he or she may continue to receive the pension on application through the local area war pension office or to Ministry headquarters?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): During the 12 months ended September, 1937, dependants' pensions were transferred to surviving parents in approximately 2,800 cases. A separate record is not kept of the period elapsing before re-issue, but the general experience is that application for re-issue is made promptly. It would not be practicable to notify surviving parents individually of this provision of the Royal Warrant, as my Department is not usually in a position to know if there is a survivor, but pensioners have their attention drawn to the point by instructions printed in the pension payment book which is in their custody.

Mr. Smith: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, having regard to the decision of Parliament that parents' pensions shall be paid in addition to old age pensions under the Contributory Pensions Acts, he will give instructions or take other steps to ensure that parents' flat rate and/or dependants' pension shall not be reduced when a parent aged 70 or over receives the old age pension under the Old Age Pension Acts, 1908 to 1924?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Parents' flat rate and pre-war dependence pensions are not reduced by my Department when the pensioner receives old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, but, as these latter pensions are subject to means limits, they may have to be awarded at a lower rate by reason of the additional income represented by the pension from my Department.

Mr. Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is time this anomaly and injustice ought to be removed?

Mr. Ramsbotham: That is a matter for another Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CARPETS (PRIMAGE DUTY, AUSTRALIA).

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that in the agreement made between Australia and Belgium the primage duty of 10 per cent. has been removed, with the result that carpets from this country, which are still subject to that tax, are faced with a considerable reduction in the advantage which they gain by means of the preferential duty; and whether he will make representations to the Australian Government pointing out this handicap and requesting that the same privilege of exemption from primage should be extended to the British products?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Belgian floor coverings wholly of cotton were exempted from primage duty in Australia on 1st January, 1937. Similar goods of United Kingdom manufacture were exempted from primage duty on the same date and the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Am I to understand that there is no disadvantage now to English production being exported as a result of the reduction in the case of Belgium?

Mr. Stanley: The same reduction was extended to English production on the same day.

BUTTER (PRICES).

Mr. Anderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the current price in Manchester of Danish butter is 1s. 6d. per lb. as against is. 3d. per lb. on 2nd November, 1936, and that Empire butter to-day is 1s. 6d. per lb., as against Ts. per lb. on 2nd November, 1936; and what he intends to do to stop the increased charges that act so detrimentally on the purchasing power of working-class households?

Mr. Stanley: The recent increase in the price of butter is due to increased demand at a time when supplies from several sources, for instance, from Australia, the Irish Free State, and certain European countries, have been from one cause or another rather smaller than usual. These causes are not within the control of the Government.

Mr. Anderson: Is it not a fact that people are now having to buy substitutes for butter, especially widows, old age pensioners, and people who are receiving allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board; and what are the Government going to do to stop this rise in prices, so that people with small purchasing power will be in a position to purchase butter rather than substitutes for butter?

Mr. Stanley: As I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, normally we should expect an increased price of butter here to bring an increased supply of butter from abroad, but owing to various causes, which we hope are temporary in those countries, there has been a reduction in supplies.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of taking off the duty on butter?

EGG IMPORTS.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the serious consequences to British egg production of the sudden increase of egg imports in the closing weeks of last year, the Government is seeking the co-operation of the chief exporting countries so as to obviate a recurrence of these losses?

Mr. Stanley: Informal discussions are now taking place with representatives of the chief foreign exporting countries with a view to averting the danger to which my hon. Friend refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE. MILK.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can assure the House that the Government are not contemplating any compulsory measure for the pasteurisation of milk throughout this country?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 1st November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore).

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in the proposed legislation on milk production and distribution, he will consider giving permanent exemption from compulsory pasteurisation in the case of the producer-retailer selling milk from one herd?

Mr. Morrison: As stated in paragraph 16 of the White Paper on Milk Policy issued in July last, it is proposed that the operation of any Order making compulsory the efficient pasteurisation of milk sold by retail shall be deferred for two years after the Order is made, that milk retailed from dairies where the milk is derived from a single herd shall be exempt for three years from the date of operation of the Order, and that milk from tuberculin tested herds shall be exempt from its scope. I am always ready to consider suggestions, but as my hon. Friend will appreciate, the Government's proposals are expressly designed to afford an adequate opportunity for those concerned to make any adjustments that may be required to meet the new conditions.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is very difficult for small farmers, especially in Wales, to procure the necessary apparatus for pasteruisation, and is it not the fact that a very large volume of British opinion will never be completely in favour of pasteurisation?

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Member will read the White Paper he will see that the initiative for any Order to make the pasteurisation of milk compulsory must emanate from the local authority, and if the hon. Member's contention is right that a large part of the people are opposed to pasteurisation, then I appreciate that only a few of these applications are likely to be made. The Government's policy is so designed that if a local authority does demand a power of compulsory pasteurisation those concerned will have adequate time in which to make the necessary arrangements and adjustments.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman make no promise which will prevent him insisting on more efficient and cheaper distribution?

Mr. Morrison: The question of distribution is dealt with in the White Paper, and I shall be careful, as far as I can, to make no promise which will prevent me from discharging my duty to the House.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that pasteurisation is not a panacea for all ills?

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many defaulters were lined in September by the Milk Board for selling milk wholesale without a contract; for rendering false returns; for failing to furnish information and returns; and what were the monetary penalties in each section?

Mr. Morrison: From information published by the Milk Marketing Board, it appears that during September, 1937, penalties amounting to £987 were imposed on 13 registered producers for selling milk by wholesale without a contract. Penalties amounting to £644 were imposed on 27 registered producers for rendering false returns, and penalties amounting to £68 on 13 registered producers for failing to furnish information and returns.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total production of milk in England and Wales and in Scotland for each of the years 1931 to 1936, and what are the comparable figures for the first nine months of 1937; and whether he foresees an increase or a decrease in the total production of milk in the course of the next year?

Mr. Morrison: With my hon. Friend's permission I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the information he desires for the years 1931 to 1936 with estimates for the period from January to September this year. With regard to the last part of the question, the production of milk is influenced by so many factors that I would rather not attempt any forecast of future supplies.

Mr. Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House the general effect of these figures so as to confirm whether there has been a considerable fall in the production of milk in recent years?

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the figures. I shall be glad to answer any other questions if he will give me notice.

Mr. Leach: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the result of his policy will be a rise or fall in prices?

Mr. Morrison: The Government's policy is designed to safeguard the interests of the consumers.

Following is the table:


ESTIMATED TOTAL MILK PRODUCTION, excluding Milk Fed to Livestock, in England and Wales and in Scotland in the years 1931 to 1937.


(Millions of gallons.)



England and Wales.
Scotland.


1931
…
1,286
163


1932
…
1,330
166


1933
…
1,366
170


1934
…
1,391
171


1935
…
1,408
174


1936
…
1,413
178


1937 (nine months)
…
1,063
140


The above estimates are based on the average yield of milk per cow as ascertained in 1930–31, and on the known changes in the national dairy herds.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Agriculture Whether he is aware that manufacturers of condensed milk and chocolate, who give employment to many workpeople in this country, are unable to obtain adequate supplies of milk; that the shortage, if continued, will necessitate the importation of foreign supplies of condensed milk and chocolate; and what steps he is taking to deal with the matter?

Mr. Morrison: The Milk Marketing Board have informed me that they have no knowledge of any manufacturer of condensed milk or chocolate who is unable at the present time to obtain adequate supplies of milk. If my hon. Friend will supply me with particulars of the cases he has in mind I shall be glad to pass the information to the board.

Mr. T. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many thousands of poor consumers in this country who are unable to obtain adequate supplies of milk, and is he satisfied that it is the right policy that chocolate manufacturers should get milk at 9d. and the poor consumers be compelled to pay 2s.?

Mr. Morrison: That raises a very much wider question of policy. In the first place, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the White Paper to which I have already referred, he will see that there the Government adumbrates proposals to render milk available to those whose necessities make them incapable of getting it; and secondly, on the question of chocolate manufacturers, I think the right hon. Gentleman himself was very eloquent on the subject when he was at the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. Johnston: With regard to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary answer. Is he not aware that the policy of the then Government, to which he referred, was to provide adequate supplies for poor consumers first?

Mr. Morrison: That may have been the policy, but I am not aware that it was executed.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the highest price per gallon of milk used for making butter and cheese that could he secured in the most favourable event by the Milk Marketing Board through the working of the price insurance plan which forms part of his milk policy; and what is the lowest figure below which the price of such milk is calculated not to fall under this guarantee?

Mr. Morrison: Nothing in the Government's proposals would impose an upper limit on the price per gallon of milk used for making butter and cheese which could be obtained by the Milk Marketing Board. The answer to the last part of the question depends on a number of factors and assumptions, and until the White Paper proposals are clothed in detail, any such calculation as the hon. Member suggests might be misleading.

Mr. Roberts: When does the right hon. Gentleman think it will be possible to give an answer to the second part of the question?

Mr. Morrison: There will always be certain assumptions depending on conditions which are quite outside the Government's proposals. There are bound to be different answers to the question which the hon. Member asks. I think an approach to a solution might be found when the Bill itself is produced.

Oral Answers to Questions — POTATOES.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can assure the House that the operations of the Potato Marketing Board are satisfactory in all respects, having regard to the necessity of an increased supply of potatoes for storage and consumption in the event of war?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The home potato crop is normally sufficient to meet nearly the whole of the country's requirements, and any increase designed to meet a possible future emergency would tend to undermine the comparative stability that has been enjoyed by the industry since the introduction of the Potato Marketing Scheme and the complementary control of imports.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the Government consider encouraging an increased acreage of potatoes with a view to setting up a factory for feeding stuffs for pigs, which would be of some use in the home-produced feeding stuffs supply?

Mr. Morrison: That is another question. The hon. Member's question on the Order Paper relates to the possibility of emergency, and I am satisfied that the acreage could be rapidly and substantially increased.

Mr. Alexander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during last winter the prices of potatoes were abnormally high to the home consumer while imports continued to be restricted? Is he satisfied in the circumstances that it is right to make the growing of further potatoes a crime?

Mr. Morrison: It is not a crime. The basic acreage of registered producers is quite sufficient in a normal yield to satisfy the whole of the home requirements.

Mr. Alexander: Is it not a crime to fine a man £5 for growing potatoes?

Mr. Morrison: I will not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman about words. I prefer to describe it more accurately as a levy.

Oral Answers to Questions — BACON.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps the Government are taking to supply the public with good British bacon at a reasonable price, in view of the operation of the restricted quotas?

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any statement to make regarding the supply of pigs to curing factories; and whether he intends to continue the scheme restricting the output of these factories?

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to remove the anomaly which now arises in connection with the bacon and bacon-development schemes under which curers may be allotted a bacon-production quota by the Bacon Development Board, but may riot, in fact, be able to utilise the whole of this production quota owing to a lower scales quota imposed by the Bacon Marketing Board?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Since the introduction of the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Schemes the quality of British bacon has considerably improved, the quantity has doubled, while the price index of bacon is less than that of food in general. As the House will be aware, consultations are now proceeding with the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards regarding the future organisation of the bacon industry, and it would be premature, therefore, to make any statement on the points raised by the hon. Members.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend do something to protect the small curer so that he can produce good bacon for the public? Will he not only protect the large man but show some consideration for the small curer in the provinces who is threatened with complete destruction through no fault of his own, but for having committed the crime of being a British subject?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is prophesying very confidently something that is going to happen as a result of the inquiry now pending, but I undertake to see that all legitimate interests in this matter are protected.

Sir Francis Acland: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for how many years it will be premature to make a statement on the subject?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think I need answer that question. I hope it will not be a matter of years. I hope to make a statement as soon as practicable.

Mr. Alexander: Although British bacon has improved in quality since the bacon


scheme has been in operation, is it not a fact that recently the quality has been deteriorating, and in these circumstances how long are we to wait before we get a statement?

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman admits an improvement in quality owing to the scheme, and in the course of the negotiations now proceeding I am doing my best to see that that improvement is maintained.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman say which years he is taking for comparison when he says that the output of bacon has been doubled?

Mr. Morrison: I am taking the last complete year of the operations of the scheme and the year before the scheme was initiated.

Mr. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman infer that the quality of bacon produced has doubled, and not the quantity of bacon?

Mr. Morrison: My reply was specific. I said that under the operation of the scheme the quantity of bacon has doubled.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the retail price of bacon is 4d. per lb. more than it was a year ago?

Mr. Morrison: The price of bacon is cheaper than it was before the depression, and before the National Government came in. Bacon, as a matter of fact, has risen less in price than foodstuffs in general, and food prices have risen less than other commodities.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the information in his Department shows the causes of the increase in pig population as shown in the Returns of 4th September as compared with the census of 4th June; and whether that information indicates that the decline in the industry has now been arrested?

Mr. Morrison: The increase in the number of pigs between 4th June and 4th September this year is of a seasonal character, but as this is the first occasion on which information regarding the numbers of pigs in September has been obtained, it is impossible to say whether

the seasonal increase recorded this year is greater or less than normal.

Mrs. Tate: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that large quantities of bacon are being imported from overseas, cured in this country, then advertised and sold as home-cured bacon; that though this may be a technically correct designation it is misleading to the general public, who purchase it believing it to be home produced; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the public shall be aware of the actual source of produce they purchase?

Mr. Morrison: Imported bacon is required to be marked with an indication of origin under the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) No. 3 Order, 1924. I am not aware that large quantities of imported bacon are subjected to a further process of curing before sale, but foodstuffs which have undergone a process of curing in the United Kingdom are expressly excluded from the operation of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926.

Mrs. Tate: In view of the fact that I am informed by the agricultural industry that a large amount of this bacon is being imported into this country and then cured, that in many instances it is of inferior quality and is prejudicing the housewife against what she believes to be English bacon, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter if I put the facts before him?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly look into the matter. My information is that this practice is not on a great scale, but I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will give me the information in her possession.

Mr. Alexander: Is not the remedy to get the British farmer to keep his contract?

Oral Answers to Questions — POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Minister of Agriculture how the return to the poultry keeper in the price of eggs throughout 1937 has compared with the three previous years?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: During the greater part of the present year, egg prices have been higher than in the preceding three years. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the monthly prices of eggs during the period covered by the question.

Sir F. Acland: Will the right hon. Gentleman also circulate the price of feeding stuffs on which hens have to feed?

Mr. Morrison: I will gladly do so if I am asked by the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member's question asks for the return to the poultry keeper in the price of eggs.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason I did

Average monthly prices per 120 of 1st and 2nd quality eggs at town and country markets during the years 1934 to 1937.


Month.
1934.
1935.
1936.
1937.




1st qual.
2nd qual.
1st qual.
2nd qual.
1st qual.
2nd qual.
1st qual.
2nd qual.




s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


January
…
13
9
12
6
13
6
12
3
16
0
14
9
13
6
12
3


February
…
12
1
10
10
12
1
11
0
14
9
13
6
14
4
13
1


March
…
8
6
7
6
8
11
7
11
20
0
9
2
11
5
10
2


April
…
8
4
7
6
8
1
7
3
8
11
8
1
9
7
8
6


May
…
8
1
7
3
8
11
8
1
10
0
8
11
10
2
9
2


June
…
9
9
8
9
10
5
9
4
11
0
10
0
12
3
11
3


July
…
10
7
9
7
12
3
11
3
13
4
12
1
15
5
14
2


August
…
14
7
13
1
15
10
14
7
15
10
14
4
16
8
15
2


September
…
13
9
12
3
15
10
14
2
16
3
14
9
18
6
16
10


October
…
17
6
16
0
18
1
16
5
21
3
19
7
20
10
18
11


November
…
21
3
19
7
21
5
19
4
21
5
19
7
—
—


December
…
17
11
16
3
20
2
18
6
19
9
17
11
—
—

Oral Answers to Questions — WOOD PIGEONS (DAMAGE TO CROPS).

Commander Marsden: asked the Minister of Agriculture what direct steps his Department is taking to advise and assist farmers to reduce the numbers of wood pigeons in view of the mischief they do to fruit, corn and root crops; and what plans he has made, in collaboration with county councils, for the extermination of this pest?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: My Department has issued a free advisory leaflet on the wood pigeon of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. The leaflet affords information as to the habits of the birds and advice as to suitable methods for their destruction. Concerted plans to this end, such as pigeon shoots, are in my view matters that fall to be arranged by those locally concerned.

Sir F. Acland: Is not the remedy really to hold one's gun rather straighter than a good many do?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the House any information in connection with

not ask for the price of feeding stuffs is that I have already received it from him?

Sir H. Croft: In providing this information for the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that it is the foreign feeding stuffs which come into this country which cause this increase in the price of eggs?

Following is the statement:

the foot-and-mouth disease at Stow-market; how many cattle and pigs will have to be destroyed; how many cattle have been slaughtered in Britain because of foot-and-mouth disease this year; and what amount of compensation has been paid?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Infection was disclosed in a consignment of 112 cattle exposed at Stowmarket Market on 4th November, one beast being then in the early stages of the disease. Owing to the very grave risk of the spread of infection all cattle and swine in the market were seized and prompt arrangements were made for their slaughter which was effected in about 24 hours. By that time other cattle in the infected consignment had developed the disease. Two hundred and thirty-three cattle, including 53 contact animals not exposed in the market, were destroyed and their carcases incinerated, and of 1,242 swine involved 1,160 fat animals were sent to local bacon factories for immediate slaughter and salvage. The remaining pigs were slaughtered and the carcases burnt. During 1937, 2,571 cattle, 4,319 sheep and 2,645 pigs have been slaughtered, and the


compensation payable to owners as a result of such slaughter amounts to £75,000.

Mr. Thorne: What is the percentage that is given to these people as compensation? Is it 50 per cent. or 75 per cent.?

Mr. Morrison: It is laid down in the Act. Speaking from memory, with regard to an animal that is infected, the compensation payable is the value before infection took place; with regard to an animal that is destroyed because of contact with infected animals, the value of the compensation is the animal's value at the time.

Mr. Thorne: Is it a fact that the owners of the cattle are in duty bound to lose a good deal of money?

Mr. F. Anderson: With regard to the tracing of the source of the disease, is it not a fact that when the disease broke out at Stowmarket some of the cattle had travelled a tremendously long distance, and will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to see that there is better organisation from the marketing point of view and thus prevent some of these diseases from occurring owing to the long distance which some of the animals have to travel at the present time?

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of, and I do not think there is, any defect that is remediable with regard to the organisation for tracing these animals. As to the present outbreak, its position on our coasts, coinciding as it does with the most violent outbreak of the disease that the Continent has suffered in recent times, suggests that possibly the disease is carried from the Continent to our fields.

Commander Marsden: Is there the possibility that this infection is brought to this country through the medium of foreign packing straw?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: In view of the very heavy losses in cattle and money, can the Minister inform the House what is the present position in regard to research in this country into the causes of this disease?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL TRADE (M. VAN ZEELAND'S MISSION).

Colonel Nathan: asked the Prime Minister what effect the fall from power in

Belgium of M. van Zeeland has had upon the mission entrusted to him by His Majesty's Government and others in regard to the investigation of questions relating to the reduction of tariff barriers and cognate problems; and how far the inquiries and negotiations have proceeded?

The Prime Minister: I understand that M. van Zeeland was preparing a report on the economic mission entrusted to him when the political crisis occurred in Belgium which led to his resignation. I am not at present in a position to say whether these developments will affect his mission but, in any case, I look forward to receiving his report in due course.

Colonel Nathan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far the inquiries and negotiations have proceeded?

The Prime Minister: I think the answer to that question is implied in my original answer. M. van Zeeland was engaged in preparing a report, and it is that report which I am now awaiting.

Colonel Nathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give to the House the contents and purport of that report as soon as it is received?

The Prime Minister: We shall have to consider it ourselves before making it public.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

EMPIRE MAILS.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Postmaster-General whether the lower rates of postage available for the despatch from the United Kingdom of registered newspapers, magazines and trade journals to Canada and Newfoundland can be extended to cover despatch to other parts of the British Empire?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): The proposal made by my hon. Friend, which raises a number of complicated questions, both financial and otherwise, has been receiving consideration for some time past. The relevant inquiries have not yet been completed.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Postmaster-General whether persons sending letters to South Africa weighing two ounces or more may have the option of sending letters by


steamship, etc., at the old rates of postage instead of by air-mail at Zed. per half-ounce?

Major Tryon: As the hon. Member will see from the White Paper (Command 5414) relating to the Empire Air Mail Scheme, the whole of the financial and other arrangements in connection with the scheme are based on the conveyance by air as the normal means of transmission of all first class mail (letters, letter packets and postcards) at the rate of rid. per half-ounce for letters and rd. for postcards, and I regret I am not in a position to sanction arrangements for the despatch of particular items of first class mail by surface route at the option of the sender.

Mr. Smith: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think that in some cases there will be hardship in this restriction?

Major Tryon: I hardly think there is much hardship in a general scheme which involves a reduction in the air service charge from 6d. to 1½d. per half-ounce. The hon. Member's suggestion would undermine the success of this scheme, which is of great importance from the point of view of Empire communications.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Postmaster-General what, approximately, is the current average interval of time between applications for telephone service and its provision in Sutton Coldfield, Solihull, Olton, Shirley, Knowle, Hampton-in-Arden, and Marston Green, respectively; what steps have been, or will be, taken to reduce the delay; and to what extent are such steps expected to accelerate provision of telephone service?

Major Tryon: Particulars of the average interval of time between application and provision of service are not recorded for individual exchanges. Taking the Birmingham area as a whole, 75 per cent. of the orders for telephone service are completed within one week, and 82 per cent. within two weeks. Serious difficulty has been experienced in the exchange areas named by the hon. Member as a result of an abnormal increase in the number of would-be subscribers in these localities, which has occasioned a certain shortage of plant. Additional plant is already on order and everything possible is being done to expedite its provision.

Sir J. Mellor: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in one instance a resident of Shirley applied for the telephone service on 24th October of last year, that his name is in the telephone directory, but that he has not yet received a telephone?

Major Tryon: I think it is hardly possible to judge the administration of the Department by an individual case of which no notice was given to me in the question.

Mr. Anderson: Is this shortage due to the manufacturing side, and if so, why not set up some works in the Special Areas to help forward the manufacturing side?

EMPLOYES (TUBERCULOSIS RESEARCH TESTS).

Mr. Leach: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the machinery of the Civil Service is being used on behalf of the Prophit Trust, letters being sent officially to the staff at the money order office asking them to volunteer to undergo an examination consisting of an X-ray photograph of the chest and a skin test; whether this skin test would be either the von Pirquet or the Mantoux tuberculin test; whether he is aware that there is a considerable difference of opinion in medical circles as to the significance of skin tests in tuberculosis and that the injection of tuberculin into the skin has occasioned a violent reaction in susceptible individuals; and whether he will stop this exploitation of young civil servants in the interests of a form of research which may damage the health of those undergoing it and cannot lead to any certain results?

Major Tryon: I am aware that the Royal College of Physicians are carrying out, on behalf of the Prophit Trust, a large scale research with a view to the early detection and prevention of tuberculosis in young adults, and that, with the previously obtained concurrence of the staff associations concerned, they have been allowed to ask for volunteers among the Post Office staff, including the staff at the Money Order Department. The whole scheme is on an entirely voluntary basis, and there is no element of compulsion whatsoever. The Mantoux test is used and it is the efficacy of this test which is the subject of investigation. I am advised that no danger is involved


and that the voluntary co-operation in this matter of young civil servants, amongst others, may be the means of very practical assistance in the campaign against pulmonary tuberculosis.

Mr. Leach: Whose will be the responsibility in the event of the illness or possibly the death of any of these young girls, who dare not refuse to undergo the operation referred to in the question?

Major Tryon: The statement that these people dare not refuse is directly contrary to the facts. As I have just told the hon. Member, they volunteer.

Mr. Leach: How are they to know that this operation is not with the sanction and approval of the Department, and that if they decline to undergo it they may not risk their jobs?

Major Tryon: They can accept my assurance, made now, that the hon. Member's statement is entirely inaccurate.

Mr. Leach: Can I have an answer from the Postmaster-General to my question? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me whose will be the responsibility in the event of sickness or death?

Major Tryon: I am assured that there is no risk, and I am not prepared to undertake the responsibility of obstructing this research work.

Mr. Leach: Then whose will be the responsibility?

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

Mr. Viant: asked the Postmaster-General the amount of overtime that has been worked during the six months ended 30th September, 1937, by those engaged in the engineering department of the London telephone service, and also for similar departments in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Bristol and Leeds?

Major Tryon: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

The number of hours of overtime worked during the six months ended 30th

September, 1937, by engineering workmen in the areas referred to is as follows:


London
…
…
805,860


Glasgow
…
…
76,407


Edinburgh
…
…
56,028


Manchester
…
…
80,340


Bristol
…
…
44,189


Leeds
…
…
56,679


These figures show an increase of 4.7 per cent. as compared with the figures for 1936 previously given to the hon. Member, but during the six months in question there was an increase of over 1,250 in the number of engineering workmen employed in the districts concerned.

Mr. Viant: asked the Postmaster-General whether there is any scarcity in the engineering department of men suitable for promotion to the posts of executive engineers, assistant engineers, chief inspectors, and inspectors; if so, can he state the reasons for same; and what steps does he propose to adopt to make good the shortage?

Major Tryon: There is no shortage of qualified candidates in the Engineering Department for promotion to the classes of executive engineer, assistant engineer and chief inspector. Vacancies on the class of inspector are filled partly by promotion and partly also by means of open and limited competitions. There is at present a shortage of candidates for the limited competitions, and it is proposed to make good this shortage by drawing more freely from the open competitions.

CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).

Mr. Anderson: asked the Postmaster-General the wage rates of men engaged by the contractors working on the underground telephone lines in the districts from Millom to Bartle, Cumberland; and whether the rates paid are in accordance with the Fair Wages Clause approved by this House?

Major Tryon: I am informed that the rates paid to navvies or labourers vary from 1s. to 1s. 0½d. per hour, and that on that basis the terms of the Fair Wages Clause are complied with.

Mr. Anderson: If the Fair Wages Clause is being applied, is it not the case that men on these jobs are working 53 hours and are not getting any additional rate of pay when they work over the 48 hours; and will he inquire into that aspect of the question?

Major Tryon: That point is not raised in the original question, but if the hon. Member will communicate with me I shall be most happy to go into it.

DATE INDICATORS (GLASGOW).

Mr. Leonard: asked the Postmaster-General on whose authority have the date indicators in the post offices in Glasgow been removed; and will he issue instructions to ensure that this equipment will he reintroduced as speedily as possible?

Major Tryon: The date indicators formerly in Crown Post Offices were placed there under an advertisement contract, which has expired. New indicators are now in course of distribution to all such offices.

STAMP-OBLITERATING MACHINES.

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General the number of stamp-obliterating machines at present in use by his Department; and particulars of the country of origin of the manufacture of the same?

Major Tryon: Nine hundred and forty-four machines are in use. Of these 636 were manufactured by Norwegian and American firms, but since December, 1930, all supplies have been ordered from firms operating in this country, and those ordered since the beginning of 193I have been wholly of British manufacture.

POSTAL SERVICES (EXPERIMENT, HULL).

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has any information as to the effect upon the postal services by the adoption by firms in Hull of a system of staggering their postal matter, so that only urgent communications are posted after 5 p.m.; and whether such system has proved to be of such benefit to the working of the postal service there as to justify his recommending its adoption generally?

Major Tryon: The scheme in question is still in an experimental stage. It seems likely to be of some advantage both to the postal service and the co-operating firms. I should welcome similar experiments elsewhere.

BROADCASTING (FOREIGN LANGUAGES).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Postmaster-General by whom the cost

of additional equipment, necessitated by the foreign broadcasts scheme, will be borne and when these broadcasts will begin?

Major Tryon: The cost will he borne by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The proportion of licence revenue payable to the corporation will be subject to review in the near future in consequence of the development of television, and in any such review the expenditure incurred on the new service will be taken into account. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated on Monday last, an announcement concerning the introduction and scope of the service will shortly be made by the corporation.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

Sir William Davison: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider lighting the stained-glass windows of the House of Commons from outside instead of within the Chamber, as this would not only improve the lighting and the general appearance of the Chamber but would obviate the glare which the recent alterations occasion to persons in the Ladies and Members Galleries?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): I have been making investigations into the possibilities of external lighting such as my hon. Friend suggests, but I regret that it is attended by a number of severe practical difficulties inherent in the structure of this building. I have already carried out alterations which have, I hope, removed the glare recently experienced in the Ladies and Members Galleries.

Mr. E. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Members of this House very much appreciate the improvements which have been made in several parts of the building, and desire that similar improvements should be made in other parts of the building; and will he also bear in mind arising out of this question, that Members can be conservative in more ways than one?

Mr. Viant: asked the First Commissioner of Works the cost of the repairs of the stonework of the Houses of Parliament to the nearest practicable date; and the anticipated date of completion?

Sir P. Sassoon: The expenditure to 30th September last was approximately £437,500; completion is anticipated by March, 1942.

HYDE PARK (FLOWER BEDS).

Sir W. Davison: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has considered the possibility of restoring the flower beds in the railed-in grass plots between Grosvenor Gate and Stanhope Gate on the eastern side of Hyde Park?

Sir P. Sassoon: I have considered my hon. Friend's suggestion very carefully, and examined it at length on the site. Since flower beds were here many years ago, trees have grown up which, while they afford a most welcome screen between the park itself and Park Lane, overshadow for most of the way the site of the old flower beds; and in other respects conditions here have materially altered. For these reasons, and for the reasons which have been given by my predecessors in reply to similar questions, I have come to the conclusion that it is not desirable to change the existing arrangements.

Sir W. Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there must be some misunderstanding about the actual location of these proposed flower-beds because there is a wide footpath between the trees and the suitable piece of grass referred to in the question, so that they would not be overshadowed in any way by the trees?

Sir P. Sassoon: There are certain parts which are not overshadowed. On the other hand, there are large areas which are overshadowed. There are many other reasons for this decision, and perhaps I could have a talk with my hon. Friend about them afterwards.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (GREENOCK AND LEITH).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour the amount of the total cuts per week suffered by unemployed persons in Greenock since the standstill allowances were departed from and the amount of the average cut per week to date; and what are the corresponding figures for Leith?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Butler): Information precisely in this form is not available. On 17th September last the number of applicants for assistance receiving allowances which had been reduced by way of adjustment of "standstill" arrangements, otherwise than on account of personal earnings, was 125 in the board's administrative area of Greenock, and 199 in Leith. It is estimated that the amount of the reduction averaged about 3s. in Greenock and under 2s. in Leith.

Mr. Gibson: Is there any reason for the disparity between these two amounts?

Mr. Butler: These amounts were arrived at upon the advice of the respective advisory committees in the areas.

MENTAL PKTIENTS.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the fact that the admissions to mental institutions in Scotland of persons over 70 years of age has risen from 256 in 1934 to 306 in 1935 and to 345 in 1936; whether he has considered these figures in relation to the inadequacy of the old age pension of 10s. per week; and whether he has any statement to make relative to the matter?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The number of admissions to mental institutions in Scot land of persons over 70 years of age has varied from year to year, and no such deduction can, I think, properly be drawn from the numbers relating to the years quoted in the question. I am not aware of a connection between the rate of old age pensions and the number of persons admitted into mental institutions.

Mr. Gibson: Has the Minister noted that it is only in this particular age group that there has been an increase and that in the lower age groups there has been a decrease in every one of them?

Mr. Wedderburn: I cannot accept any deductions from the years which the hon. and learned Member has selected. In 1930 the number was 320 and in 1933 it was 286, and I think we ought to expect the figures to fluctuate considerably from year to year.

Mr. Gibson: Does not the hon. Gentleman associate this particular increase with the rise in the cost of foodstuffs during these last three years, and does he note the fact with regard to the lower age groups there has not been an increase?

Mr. Wedderburn: If the hon. and learned Member applied that reasoning to 1930, the reverse conclusion could be drawn.

Mr. Gallacher: If the Minister had to live on 10s. a week, how long would he remain out of a mental institution?

FAMILY BUDGET INQUIRY.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Minister of Labour whether families living upon Unemployment Assistance Board's and Public Assistance Committee's allowances are included in the present inquiry into family budgets; and, if not, whether it is intended to hold a separate investigation in order to obtain information about the food consumption and nutritional standards of such families?

Mr. Butler: Persons who were in receipt of unemployment assistance were, as fax as possible, omitted from the lists of those invited to supply information in connection with the family budget inquiry now being undertaken by the Department, and under the procedure for selecting the sample, persons in receipt of public assistance would not normally have been included. My right hon. Friend does not propose to have a separate investigation in such cases.

Mr. Sandys: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that it will be possible for the Government to formulate their nutrition policy without having the fullest information about the dietary of the poorest families?

Mr. Butler: The decision in question was arrived at as a result of the advice of the Advisory Committee. There was a difference of opinion in the Committee, and the trade union representatives took the view that it was not wise to include these families.

Mr. Sandys: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the purpose of the inquiry is twofold first, to establish the cost of living, and, second, to enable the Government to formulate a far-reaching nutrition policy?

Mr. Butler: Yes, my right hon. Friend is well aware of both.

Mr. Lawson: Was not the view of the Advisory Committee that there should be a separate investigation into these cases?

Mr. Butler: The view of the Committee upon which, as I say, there was a difference of opinion, was certainly that these people should not be included.

Mr. Lawson: But did they object to a separate investigation?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps the hon. Member would put that question down.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended to publish a full summary of the results of the inquiry at present being conducted into family budgets; and, if so, when he expects to be in a position to do so?

Mr. Butler: A full summary will be published in due course. I would remind my hon. Friend that four sets of budgets are to be collected, the last of them in the summer of next year. It will be a considerable time, therefore, before the complete results will be known.

GERMANY (COLONIES).

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the German and Italian Governments are pressing by propaganda for the cession of compensatory African Colonies on the West coast to Germany; and whether he can give an assurance that no British territory will be transferred to Germany in any case without the clear consent of the native population?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have nothing to add to the statements that have already been made on this subject.

Colonel Wedgwood: In view of the pro-German propaganda in the "Times," will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that that propaganda in the "Times" has not the support of His Majesty's Government?

MARRIED WOMEN (NATIONALITY).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any


steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government at the Imperial Conference or since to secure agreement among the Governments of the Dominion countries concerning alteration of the laws relating to British nationality, so that married women shall be in the same position in this respect as single women or men; and whether he has information as to recent changes in this direction made in the laws of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Irish Free State?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Marquess of Hartington): In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the report on the Nationality of Married Women adopted by the recent Imperial Conference. This report is contained in the Summary of Proceedings of the Conference, Cmd. 5482, pages 27 and 28. As regards the second part of the question, information as to relevant recent legislation in Australia and New Zealand is given in the report already referred to. I have no information as to any recent similar legislation in Canada; as regards the Irish Free State, I would refer the hon. Member to the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1935, of the Irish Free State, of which I am sending him a copy.

SLUM CLEARANCE (FILM PROPAGANDA).

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the public exhibition by the British Paramount News of a news-reel containing an attack upon the Government's slum-clearing policy; and whether it is proposed to take any steps to counteract the effect of such propaganda?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend sees no reason for any special action, as my hon. Friend is doubtless aware there are many films widely exhibited which depict many of the extensive slum clearances which have recently been made.

Mr. Robinson: Is the hon. Member aware that the British cinema-going public is being subjected to anti-slum clearance propaganda which suggests that no proper alternative accommodation is

provided for dispossessed tenants, and will he try to correct this impression at once?

Mr. Bernays: I think the most effective counter-propaganda is the success of the National Government's slum clearance programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

SUPERANNUATION (VARIOUS SERVICES) BILL,

"to extend the powers conferred by certain enactments relating to superannuation so as to include power to grant the like superannuation benefits, and to permit the like allocation of superannuation benefits to spouses and dependants, as could be granted or permitted in respect of persons in the Civil Service of the State; to provide for distribution without probate of sums not exceeding one hundred pounds due to persons to whom those enactments apply or their legal personal representatives; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Lieut.-Colonel Colville; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Resolutions reported from the Chairmen's Panel:


1. That where, on two successive sittings of a Standing Committee called for the consideration of a particular Bill, the Committee has to be adjourned by reason of the absence of a quorum within the first twenty minutes of the time for which the said Committee was summoned, the Chairman do instruct the Clerk to place the particular Bill at the bottom of the list of Bills then waiting consideration of that Committee, and that the Committee shall forthwith be convened to consider the other Bill or Bills then waiting.
2. That it is the undoubted and established right of the Chairman who is appointed to a Standing Committee for the consideration of a particular Bill to name the day and hour on which the consideration of the Bill shall begin.
3. That if, during the consideration of a Bill before one of the Standing Committees, it shall appear that the business would be expedited by postponing the further consideration of the Bill in hand until the Bill next on the list has been reported, and if the Member in charge of the Bill rises and makes a Motion to that effect, the Chairman will be in order in proposing such a question.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

4.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The effect of this Bill will be to add two additional judges to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. One additional Judge will be permanent. The other, after the lapse of a year, under provisions which I shall explain in more detail later, will not be made unless an Address by both Houses of Parliament represents that the state of business in the court requires an additional judge. At present the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division consists of a President and two puisne judges. The effect of the will be immediately to increase that Division to a President and four puisne Judges, subject to this, that if a vacancy occurs in that number after a year, so that the total falls to three, the fourth place will not be filled except by an Address from Parliament. If no Address is passed and a vacancy should occur reducing the number from three to two, then that vacancy can be filled without an Address from Parliament.
The reasons for this Bill, which I think will commend it to the House, can be stated in comparatively few words. The reasons arise, first of all, out of the present position in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Court, and also from the work which it is anticipated will fall on that Division as a result of the passing of the Matrimonial Causes Act last Session. First, let me say something about the present position of the Court. So far as undefended cases are concerned the position is not causing anxiety, and these cases are being dealt with at a reasonably rapid rate. On 26th October, however, in addition to 10 special adjournments, a number of which have been set down as long ago as March last, there were in the defended non-jury list some 596 cases awaiting trial. That number is not only large in itself, but is 100 greater than the figure of the corresponding time last year, and last year's figure was in itself 90 higher than the figure of the year before.
One, therefore, sees, in this very important part of the list, increasing arrears, which have now undoubtedly reached an extent which requires to be dealt with. There are not only the cases on land, but also at sea. In the Admiralty work last year four more days were absorbed than in any previous year. There is no reason to suppose that there will be a reduction in the demand made on the judges in this Division by any decrease in the Admiralty work. On the contrary, so far as can be anticipated, it is more likely to increase than to decrease. Nor can the arrears be accounted for in any way by illness or some exceptional cause which has ceased to operate. Not only has there been no illness resulting in these arrears, but the existing Judges on many occasions have been sitting beyond the usual hours in order to deal with the pressure of work. That is a fact which would be sufficient to demand the attention of Parliament.
In addition to that it will, of course, be quite obvious to all Members of the House that the Matrimonial Causes Act will throw additional work on the Court. There will be insanity cases which will require not only care, but skilled evidence, possibly on both sides, and it is to be anticipated that to deal with them will require a considerable amount of time. Cruelty cases, in the same way, will have to be taken into account, and also an increase in the number of cases which arise from the fact that this is now a ground for divorce. It is quite impossible to forecast, but it is a fact that this new Act will inevitably increase the burden to be placed on the Court, and that burden will be greater in the initial years than it will be ultimately. The procedure familiar to this House in connection with the ordinary Judges of the King's Bench, the procedure of filling a vacancy not, as it were, automatically, but only if the state of business in the Court requires it, seems an appropriate procedure when, as here, we are dealing in the first place with existing arrears, and, in the second place, with work which will arise under an Act recently passed, when it is difficult to forcast exactly what volume of work will arise under that Act.
I will deal very shortly with the details of the Bill. It is a very simple Bill. Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 raises


the number of puisne Judges from two to four. Sub-section (2) provides for an Address should there be a vacancy in the fourth judgeship any time after a year from the passing of the Act. Subsection (3) also deals with that point. If any hon. Member has read to the end of that Sub-section he may be a little puzzled by the concluding words. Those words are taken from the Act of 1935, and are there in order to meet the extremely unlikely possibility of the appointments of the two additional places not being made in the first instance within a year. Of course the intention is that the appointments shall be made. But the words produce this result: Suppose that the two original appointments were not made within the year, a year having elapsed we would have to come to Parliament for an Address in order to appoint a Judge. It is a small and technical point, and I have explained it in case any hon. Member is not clear as to its meaning.
I see on the Order Paper notice of an Amendment to refuse consent to the Bill, pending the dealing with certain matters. The House will not want me, in anticipation of what may be said on that Amendment, to deal with the points raised by it, except very briefly. I should, however, like to say this: That notice of Amendment proposes, in effect, that the House should not proceed with the Bill until arrangements have been made under which divorce petitions may be heard and determined by His Majesty's Judges in the King's Bench Division sitting in London and at assize towns. In effect, I think that would mean the abolition of the Division, so far as it deals with divorce work and the doing of that work by the Bench. That was a suggestion which was made originally in 1933. It attracted a great deal of opposition at that time, and was reconsidered by the Royal Commission, on which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) sat. The majority on that Commission advised against it. My hon. and learned Friend, in a Minority Report, was not convinced by his colleagues. He thought, and still thinks, that it is a good proposal.
All I can say to him now is this: In this Bill we are seeking to deal with an immediate need, which I think the whole

House will agree must be dealt with, and that the only result of rejecting this Bill would be to pile up arrears in the Divorce Division. I, therefore, hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not press his Amendment to the stage of asking Members of the House to reject the Bill. No doubt my hon. and learned Friend will amplify the views which he has put before us in the past, and I hope he will live to amplify them in the future, but I suggest to him that this particular moment, when the House has recently passed a new Act bringing into operation new bodies of law practice and procedure in connection with divorce, is not perhaps an appropriate moment to make the changes which my hon. and learned Friend desires to be made.

4.14 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: This is truly a very simple Bill, and we shall all agree with the proposition that justice, in order to be efficient, must be swift, and, therefore, if it is contemplated that a great deal more time has to be occupied by the cases arising out of recent legislation, it is obviously necessary for a proper and efficient staff of Judges to be provided to deal with that work. But we are not satisfied that this is the right approach to the problem. It seems to us that the Government are unduly concerned with the tradition of the Courts and the Divisions into which almost casually they have fallen. The Divorce Court, as the successor to the old ecclesiastical jurisdiction, has become a separate department of the High Court of justice, and the learned Attorney-General says that now, just as we have passed new legislation, is not an appropriate moment to consider that matter. I should have thought there could be no more appropriate moment than this when, as a result of new legislation, we contemplate the appointment of two new Judges, for considering how those appointments may best serve the people of this country.
The real question is, How best can we serve the mass of poor persons who will want to utilise the services of Judges in their matrimonial difficulties? Can they best be served by appointing two new Judges to sit in London in the Divorce Division, or will they be better served by appointing two new judges generally, with power to deal with divorce on circuit, and any other matters which arise


on circuit; that is to say, to strengthen the general body of Judges rather than to strengthen this specialised department of the High Court? No special qualification of which I am aware is necessary for a Judge in order to try a divorce case. Thousands of them are tried on circuit by Judges of the King's Bench Division, and I have heard no complaints that such Judges are incapable, because of the highly technical points that are raised, of dealing with them. There is no reason why we should perpetuate and accentuate this separation by the appointment of Judges specifically to the Probate and Divorce Division.
It would, in our view, be far better, and would accomplish more easily the results which I hope everybody in the House desires, namely, that people should have their cases disposed of speedily and without undue expense, if the additional Judges were made Judges who were of general service to the community and not limited to this very narrow type of jurisdiction. When we have so recently passed Measures which are likely to increase this particular type of litigation seems to me the precise moment when we should take into consideration the question of whether we are really doing the best for the community by perpetuating this distinction between the Divisions of the High Court. The argument that because something is required immediately we must keep to the old method and not make any change is the most dangerous argument conceivable for any legislative assembly. We shall always be committing ourselves to going on with the past because the present is "not the appropriate moment" to change directions, and I should rather take the view that these new circumstances have offered us an opportunity to consider the whole question and see whether we cannot devise a better method from the point of view of expense or anything else.
It is going to make no difference whether we appoint these Judges as additional Judges of the King's Bench or Judges of the Probate and Divorce Division. It is going to give us far more flexibility if they are Judges of the King's Bench Division. When a large number of Judges are away on circuit delays occur not only in the Divorce Court but in the other parts of the High

Court as well. As the learned Attorney-General has said, nobody knows now what will really be the outcome of any litigation arising from this new legislation. This Bill provides the means whereby these two additional Judges may be cut down to one in the event of there not being enough for them to do, and that seems to be a strong argument why we should not devote this extra £10,000 a year and this extra man power on the judicial bench solely to this very narrow line. It may be that it will be convenient for two of the King's Bench Judges to be appropriated to this work for a certain period of time—I am not concerned with that—but it may also, as the learned Attorney-General has told us, turn out that it would not be convenient to appropriate both of them. Nobody wants a learned Judge of the Divorce Court to kick his heels about or appear to be waiting to increase the amount of matrimonial trouble in order that he may get sufficient to do. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Alan Herbert) would not desire that. Therefore, having this opportunity provided, and being all agreed, as I understand we are, that it is desirable to provide sufficient judicial strength to deal efficiently and swiftly with the work which comes before the courts, I cannot at the moment see any argument in favour of doing it in this way, except the argument that we have always done it like this, and that it seems to me—and I see that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) apparently agrees—is the worst argument.

Sir John Withers: I did not express any agreement with the hon. and learned Member. What was in my mind was that at this particular time if you do what is being suggested you will have to reorganise the whole of Somerset House, the whole of the Divorce, Admiralty and Probate Registry, and that that will take a long time.

Sir S. Cripps: I am sure that the hon. Member is exaggerating the difficulty. Let us assume that we appoint two extra King's Bench Judges. They could be borrowed, appropriated, or whatever you like to call it, for the Probate and Divorce Court. When they were wanted there they could come across and help, but they would be equally available to help with the King's Bench work, and we should


not be perpetuating and magnifying a Division which a good many people think ought in the course of time to disappear; we should not be prejudicing ourselves by re-enforcing the Probate and Divorce Division. It would not upset the Probate Registry or anything else. We should be gradually moving towards the time which a good many, though not all, lawyers would desire to see, when these artificial distinctions, which are artificial, between the King's Bench and the Probate and Divorce Divisions so far as the Bench is concerned, are swept away and we pool our resources and thereby, on both sides, became more efficient and swifter in our administration of justice. Unless the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General can give us some very much better reason than has been put forward so far for making these two Judges extra Judges of the Probate and Divorce Division, we on this side shall certainly support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies), because we believe that would develop our administration of justice on right and sound lines.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof;
this House refuses to consent to the addition of two Judges to the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division whose time will be almost wholly occupied with the trial of divorce petitions in London, while this House is of opinion that divorce petitions should be heard and determined by His Majesty's judges in the King's Bench Division sitting in London and at every assize town.
I never thought the time would come when I should have to oppose a Bill which proposed to increase the judicial strength of our Bench. I have always been in favour of the creation of more Judges, so that justice might be administered quickly, because delay in the administration of justice is a denial of justice, and there is nothing more calculated to sap the confidence of the public in our judiciary than heartbreaking delays. They not only affect the people in their everyday work, but the cost goes on increasing day by day. There are delays now not only in the King's Bench Division but, as the learned Attorney-

General has pointed out, in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. That is not due to anything lacking on the part of the Judges, but obviously due to the lack of a sufficient number of Judges. In opposing this Bill I do not in any way criticise the Judges, but only criticise the method by which the Government propose to deal with some of the difficulties which everybody admits exist in the administration of justice. The judiciary itself is as good now as it ever has been. There is one other criticism I have heard from time to time which, I think, is absolutely unjustified, and that is that possibly the candidates for the Judicial Bench are not as good as the candidates in the past. I have left the Temple now, but I still know the Temple very well, and I see no ground whatsoever for such a criticism. There are as good men practising to-day at the Bar as there are sitting on the Bench.
It is extraordinary how the authorities responsible for the administration of justice in this country have proceeded. There are two things for which the Government make themselves entirely responsible, one the defence of the individual, and the other the administration of justice. The administration of justice has been, and is now, a monoply of the State. With regard to the defence of the individual, the authorities will spend any money, will even borrow as much as £1,500,000,000 in order to carry out the duty of Defence, but they are not prepared to spend a penny more than is being spent at the present moment—I will deal in a moment with the amount spent—upon the proper administration of justice. The administration of justice in this country costs the State, as such, nothing—not a penny piece. Hon. Members will observe that when the Vote for the administration of justice comes before this House it is a Vote for a nominal £100. The amount received day by day from fees in one form or another is sufficient to pay for all the judges. all the buildings, all the clerks, all the necessary matters in connection with the administration of justice, and yet the State is responsible for the administration of justice and, so far as I can see, some of the authorities are against its better administration, although the public certainly are not. If there is a demand for better Defence the administration will


give ear to it and will not consider the expense. Why is it that when the public keep on asking for a better administration of justice some of the authorities deny it to them?
This matter has been raised time and time again. There have been any number of commissions and any number of recommendations, but very few of them carried out. As the learned Attorney-General said, there was a unanimous recommendation about the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division as recently as 1933, but nothing was done. I want to correct what the learned Attorney-General said about the Peel Commission, on which I had the honour of sitting. He suggested that the majority on the Peel Commission came to the conclusion that in what had been recommended by the Hanworth Commission the Hanworth Commission had gone too far. They did nothing of the kind. On the Peel Commission we were all agreed that the position of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division was anomalous. The only difference between the majority and myself was that I thought it came within the terms of reference, and therefore we could deal with it, whereas the majority came to the conclusion that inasmuch as we were concerned with the business of the King's Bench Division, this matter could not really be dealt with.
Now let me tell the House why I oppose the Bill. My objection is twofold. First, it is an objection that a Judge should be called upon to try divorce proceedings only. My second objection is that defended cases under the present system will be triable only in London. The proposal contained in the Bill is that the judge should be a divorce Judge and try nothing but divorces, and that all undefended cases should still be tried in London. Let us see the matter from the point of view of a Judge. In 1857, for some reason or other, the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Divisions then came together and were put into one division. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) very rightly said that no special knowledge is required to deal with divorce, but special knowledge is undoubtedly required to deal with Admiralty cases, and difficult questions sometimes arise with regard to probate. What has been recommended by prior commissions is that Admiralty work should be done by

a specialist in Admiralty. There could easily be attached to him work which is now done by what we call the commercial court in the King's Bench Division, because the two matters are very similar. The King's Bench Division Court is concerned with ships and shipping, charter parties and bills of lading, whereas the Admiralty Court deals only with collisions, navigation and matters of that kind. The probate Judge is chosen because he has to deal with interpretation of wills, and such Judges must be the most suitable people to deal with whether a will has been properly made. That leaves divorce. No technical knowledge is required for such work. Without wearying the House, perhaps I may remind hon. Members of who have been the past Presidents of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division in my time, dealing with divorce.
When I first went to the Bar the President was Mr. Goren Barnes, afterwards Lord Goren, an Admiralty Judge who I do not suppose before he sat on the bench had ever listened to a divorce case. He was followed by Mr. Justice Bigham, afterwards Lord Mersey; again I am certain that he had never been inside a divorce court and never heard a divorce case; yet he was promoted to be President of that Division. The next man was a Member of this House. He was promoted after being Solicitor-General and having had a purely common-law practice, and was Sir Samuel Evans, one of the greatest Judges that ever sat in that Division. He was followed in term by another common-law Judge, Mr. Justice Pickford as he was when he was appointed, and afterwards Lord Sterndale, who, as I know for a fact because I had the honour of acting as his secretary, had never heard a divorce case before he became President. After he was appointed Master of the Rolls he was followed by Sir Henry Duke, afterwards Lord Merrivale. I agree that Sir Henry, when he was at the Bar, had had a certain amount of experience at divorce work, but that was only when he had been called in in great cases because of his influence with the jury, and not because he had any special technical knowledge. He was followed by an ex-Solicitor-General who admitted before the Peel Commission that he had had no experience of divorce before he was appointed.
There is no necessity, therefore, to appoint a specialist to deal with divorce. I come then to the other side; there was only one Judge who had had a practice in the Divorce Court who was ever appointed to that post. He was a barrister who had practised in the Divorce Court, and he was appointed Judge. That example has never been followed. The position to-day is that the President is a common-law man, Sir Frank Boyd Merriman, and the other two are purely Admiralty Judges, Mr. Justice Langton and Mr. Justice Bucknill. I am certain that neither of them had ever heard a divorce case before being appointed. I know for a fact that Mr. Justice Langton had not, because he gave evidence before the Peel Commission.
In 1920, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Birkenhead—I wish he were still alive and were still Lord Chancellor, and that he had remained on the Woolsack a little longer, because we should have had greater reforms for which we have been waiting—for the first time interfered in this matter and came to the conclusion that it was wrong that all divorce cases should be sent to London to be tried. He knew about the expense, and especially the wrong and iniquity of it. Immediately after the War when there were so many divorce applications all of which had to be brought to London and tried, he came to the conclusion that some of them should be sent on circuit. I know that he wanted to send them all on circuit, but he succeeded in getting only two classes of cases sent on circuit. These are tried on circuit to-day, and are the undefended divorce cases and the poor persons defended divorces. I do not know whether the House is aware what poor persons cases are. They are cases where the man proves that his total income is less than £4 a week. It used to be £2, but the authorities extended it.
If the man proves his income, the case can be tried on circuit, but not at every Assizes—only at 26 out of the 61 Assizes. Why confine the matter to 26 Assizes? Why put a man who has only £4 a week to the trouble of going to one of the 26 towns and not to his nearest Assizes? I will come back to this matter. The point I am on at the moment concerns the position of the Judge. These cases are tried on circuit by King's Bench Judges. When they are through their other cases, they

try the undefended and the poor persons defended divorces. In 1934—these are the last figures I have, but they were the figures given to the Peel Commission—the total number of cases other than matrimonial causes which were tried on circuit came to about 1,600, but the King's Bench Judges tried on circut 1,760 matrimonial cases. What is the use of telling me that you need a specialist to try these cases? Judges are appointed having had no experience of the Divorce Court, and yet when they are on their very first circuit they find they have to try all those cases.
My next point with regard to the Judges is, who is to accept these appointments? A Judge will know that for 15 years, before he can earn his living, he has to sit there and try divorce, and nothing but divorce, day in and day out, from 10·30 in the morning until 4 in the afternoon, hearing nothing but the same kind of evidence. The only-change is in the names of the parties and witnesses, and the Judge need not utter a sound except "Decree" or "So be it." For 15 years that will go on without change. The Court deals with probate as well as with Admiralty and divorce, but the time occupied by probate is less than two-fifths of the Judge's time, and the time occupied by Admiralty cases in 1934 was less than three-fifths of the Judge's time; so the two together occupy less than one judge's time. They try to relieve the monotony by giving Admiralty to Judge A when it arises, the next time to Judge B, and the next time to Judge C. Presumably the other two Judges will be put on to try divorce. There are already two Admiralty specialists there. Admiralty is a difficult and international matter. The Court of Admiralty has an international standing respected by every country in the world. Now you are going to put there to try these cases a man who has never had any experience of it. That being so, what can they do to relieve the monotony? They will just be trying those, and nothing else.
May I remind the House of the evidence given before us by one of the Judges sitting there now? He has not been there very long, I should think a matter of five or six years. This is the evidence with regard to monotony given by Mr. Justice Langton in answer to a question which I put. I asked him what


was likely to happen if you left the Divorce Court alone to-day. He said:
I do not think that any one with anything approaching a first-class intelligence would he content to spend his whole judicial life in the unrelieved study of divorce. I should doubt—your Lordships will forgive me, and I hope you will not accuse me of being frivolous when I say—the complete sanity after five years of divorce of any man who spent his entire time in that way.
Yet what you propose to do now is to add two judges to that list.
I realise that the thing is marvellously well organised. I understand that an undefended divorce now takes five minutes, or less than 10 minutes. This is what takes place; There is no speech by counsel. He merely gets up—I assume it is a wife's petition—and he says: "Your Lordships, this is a wife's petition. Mrs.—whatever here name is—will you go into the box?" He then asks her about 12 or 15 questions, and asks her to identify a photograph. She then walks out of the box, and ready to walk into the box is the agent who served the papers on the husband. He goes in and identifies the photograph, and says he found the husband living with another woman. "That is my case, my lord," says counsel; "I ask for a decree." The judge nods his head and says "So be it," and it is finished. There is a queue all nicely arranged by the usher so that no time is wasted. Leaving the judge's side for a moment, let me come now to the public point of view. I understand that the cost of an undefended divorce suit to-day is anything between £75 and £120 or £130. That money has to be found unless you happen to be a poor person. A defended divorce will, of course, cost goodness knows what; it will depend upon the witnesses, the solicitors 'and the counsel. An undefended case may be tried either in London or in one of the 26 towns, but a defended case can be tried only in London.
The husband is put in this extraordinary position. Let me assume that it is the wife who is bringing the petition against the husband, though it may be the other way. The wife brings her petition, an order is made against the husband for alimony, an order is made against him for the provision of the costs of his wife's solicitors, his wife's witnesses and his wife's counsel. He has to pay all the expenses of bringing these

people to London and keeping them in London, including the whole of their hotel expenses, and they have to wait for one, two, three and four days. For a certain period the undefended cases are taken, and then, perhaps, the defended cases are put in, two, three and four cases in a day, lest perchance—because this is the idea of some of the authorities as to the way in which justice should be administered—lest perchance during the day a Judge may find himself unoccupied. The heavens are going to fall if the Judge is off the bench for five minutes unoccupied, but witnesses can remain outside in the corrider for hours, and even days, and their expenses have to be met. The husband, after providing for all these expenses for his wife, has then to find the money for his own expenses.
Take the case of a man who is just out- side the poor persons rule, say a clerk in receipt of £250 a year. One instance was given in evidence before us, and I referred to it in my own report. Take the case of a clerk in Newcastle in receipt of £250 a year. His wife conscientiously believes that she is entitled to a divorce, and he is conscientiously determined to fight it, saying that she is not entitled to a divorce, that he is not guilty of these charges which she has made against him. He has to find all that money for her and her witnesses and for bringing them to London. Where is he to find the money to defend himself? What happens? He borrows it until he can borrow no more, and his friends then come to him and say, "Give it up, it is not worth it." If there are no children, the chances are that he will, but if there are children he says, "I am still determined to fight and keep my home together." He is a ruined man before the case comes on for hearing, and he does not know how long he and his witnesses and his wife will be kept waiting in London. That is the system which it is proposed to perpetuate. It is a denial of justice. What is more, it is putting a premium on collusion, because at last, perhaps, the man will throw it up and say he cannot afford it, and might as well let the case go undefended, so that it can be tried at Newcastle and there will be an end of it.
That is the system against which I am fighting. I am not fighting against an increase in the number of judges, but only for better administration of justice. I think it is iniquitous that at a time like


this there should be, or should appear to be, reason for the cry that there is one law for the rich and one for the poor. There is one law for the rich and the very poor, because the very poor can have their cases tried on circuit; but those who are just above the poverty line of £4 a week cannot. There is a simple and easy remedy, the remedy suggested by the commission that inquired into this matter. It is to put the probate cases in the Chancery Division; to put the Admiralty and commercial cases together and let the Admiralty Court carry on its own work under its own specialists; and to let all the judges try these cases where they arise. Justice should be as near to the door of the applicant as it can possibly be administered. It is for that reason that I put my Amendment on the Paper.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Owen Evans: I beg to second the Amendment.
In view of the objections to this Bill which have been stated very concisely and clearly by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and of the objections which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) has stated with his usual eloquence and with his very great knowledge, I need detain the House for only a very few minutes. It seems to me that the great objection to the Bill is, as was said by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, that the Government have not seized this opportunity of dealing with a matter upon which there is considerable agreement as to what should be done. Attention has been called to the recommendations which have been made by Commissions and Committees, by the Han-worth Committee particularly, for the fusion of this Division of the High Court with the King's Bench Division, but it seems to me that the Government in this case, as in so many others, have taken the easiest course—they have just tinkered with the subject. There is a consensus of opinion outside the legal profession that something radical should be done, but they are afraid of doing it because of some very strong opposition inside the profession. One of the gravest objections to the Royal Commission which considered this matter seems to me to be that it included no one except my hon. and learned

Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire—who by that time had left the Bar and gone into, shall I say, a higher or perhaps more remunerative sphere—who was outside the legal profession—

Mr. C. Davies: Except the chairman.

Mr. Evans: Except the chairman. The Commission itself, with the exception of my hon. and learned Friend, was composed entirely of legal practitioners. Apart from the indefinite postponement of what is admitted by a considerable body of opinion to be required, my principal objection to the Bill is that, from the very nature of the Bill, these appointments will be made from among practitioners at the Bar whose practice is now confined entirely to divorce cases, and it appears to me that there cannot be any possibility of making use of these new judges for work in the High Court where there are arrears from time to time. As I understand the Bill, it will increase permanently the number of puisne judges in the Divorce Court by one. There will be at least three. At the present moment the effect will be to increase the number to four, but, should there he a vacancy hereafter, it is not to be filled if the number is not less than three. Even these three will be occupied in trying divorce cases day after day and year after year, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, for 15 years, and they will be of no use in the administration of justice outside the very narrow field of the Divorce Court. I myself, years ago, was a very modest practitioner, and it seemed to me then that the history of the appointments to the King's Bench Division and the High Court indicated that only on very few occasions was it thought fit to appoint practitioners who were solely engaged in the Divorce Court. Here, however, the Government are proposing to appoint two judges who will be exclusively employed for years to come on that particular work.
This House passed a Measure last Session which extended the grounds for divorce, and it is proper and necessary that facilities for dealing with cases that may arise under that Act shall be afforded in the future. The Attorney-General said that the main ground for appointing these two additional Judges is the arrears that already exist in that Division, but he did not estimate, and we do not know, how many cases there will be under the new Act, or whether they will continue


to arise; we hope that they will not be numerous. But we are making certain that there will be one extra Judge, who will receive £5,000 a year, for dealing with this particular branch of work in the future. I submit to the House that that is a wrong way of attempting to deal with this matter.
It has been said that these facilities for divorce should be brought within easy reach, not only of persons who are deemed under the present rules to be poor persons, but of persons of moderate means who live 200 or 250 miles away from London. At one time I had to go occasionally to the Divorce Court to appear for a petitioner, and I remember one particular case which perhaps the House will forgive me for mentioning. It happened to come from Wales, it was an undefended case, and the President happened to be a Welshman. The whole list had to be gone through during the day, and at 4 o'clock when the President was about to rise, it happened that my case was coming next. I ventured very diffidently to suggest to the President that in the circumstances, having regard to the fact that several persons had had to come up to London at great cost and that the petitioner had not much means, he might take that case. He asked me where the case came from, and I replied, "From the Principality." He said, "What Principality?", and I replied, "The only Principality." He consented to take it, and the lady, who was of very prepossessing appearance, got her decree nisi in a matter of four or five minutes. Since then the procedure has been changed, and undefended cases are now being taken at a large number of assizes. But there are also the defended cases, and, as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, there are cases of that kind, in which the people concerned are of moderate means, which are sometimes far more important than undefended cases. Surely, the least that could be done to give effect to the Act which this House passed last Session would be for the Government to give facilities whereby these people of moderate means can have justice brought to their doors.
The only other point I wish to mention is one that was made by my hon. and learned Friend in giving a quotation from the evidence of a Judge which indicated that continuous work in the Divorce Court seemed not to make those doing it fitted to assist in the administra-

tion of the general law of the land. I remember hearing of an Admiralty Judge of great standing who, after having worked in that court for a few months, was asked how he liked it and what kind of life he had to lead there. He replied, "Well, at the present time half my life is the sea, and half a sewer." That was the opinion that the learned Judge had of his work—work at the Admiralty which he liked, and work at the Divorce Court which he detested.

5.1 p.m.

Sir J. Withers: I should like to support this Bill very heartily at the present moment, especially as, in spite of the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill, it entails no extra cost to the country, because it is well proved that lawsuits bring in more in the way of receipts than the cost of running the courts. Something must be done at once without waiting. There are very heavy arrears now before the courts, and a very large number of cases are waiting to he heard under the new grounds for divorce which will come into operation at the beginning of next year. Of course, there will be a great wave to start with, but after a little time it will level down. We cannot possibly tell at present what the number will be, but I am certain there must be a very considerable increase, owing to the increased grounds for which divorce can be granted. Most of these, I think, will be cases that will take a very long time, because, at the request of the authorities, the Matrimonial Causes Bill contains a very curious Clause putting a duty on the courts to inquire into each case. That means to say, that on a very simple undefended divorce case the courts will have to look into the whole thing, and such a case, instead of taking, as it now would, about five minutes, will take half an hour or an hour, or it may be more. Therefore, new Judges must be appointed.
I appreciate what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said, and I congratulate him most heartily on his speech. It was an excellent speech, a most telling speech, and certainly it had a great effect on my mind, at any rate, as to the general question of the administration of the law. But that is a matter which will have to be gone into at very considerable length. It will take some time to work out and some time to


adjust. It concerns not simply the Judges themselves but all the various staffs, registrars and officials in chambers. They will all have to be readjusted.

Mr. C. Davies: Is the hon. Member aware that this was gone into by the Hanworth Commission, and that they recommended that the present President should carry on as now without any alteration or rearrangement?

Sir J. Withers: I quite appreciate that. If that was the only thing at issue, I do not think there would be very much in it, because there are Judges who will be appointed from the King's Bench Division, and, therefore, if we are going to treat the Judges themselves as separate entities from their administration, I think there is a good deal to be said. But I do not think that that is an innovation which ought to be undertaken on this Measure. Why not deal with it as a separate Measure? I am very much impressed by what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has said, and I should be prepared to consider seriously his suggestions on that subject. We do want Judges who have some actual knowledge of divorce law. The trial of a divorce case, especially an undefended case, is extremely simple; in fact, it is so simple that there is a great deal of collusion. In a great many cases witnesses are lined up. The whole thing has been arranged beforehand. But Judges with knowledge of divorce work are wanted for special work in chambers—questions, for instance, of maintenance and alimony. We had a discussion a few days ago on whether it was possible to fix reasonable maintenance. Now these Judges have in every case to apply their minds to that.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Evans: My hon. Friend who has just sat down, like the learned Attorney-General, said that this Bill was required for two main reasons. One is that there will be extra work under the Matrimonial Causes Act. It is often said that litigation is a speculative venture. That is quite true; that is why so many lawyers spend so much time trying to settle cases out of court. But if the results of litigation are uncertain, so are the results of legislation. In regard to the amount of work which will accrue, that, as the learned Attorney-General

said, is a matter on which he can give no forecast, and nobody else can. Therefore it seems to me that that is a matter in regard to which the Government might have waited. But in this particular matter they have shown a capacity for prompt action of which we should like to see examples on other matters.
Let me come to the nature of the cases under the Matrimonial Causes Act. On this matter I should like to endorse what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps). There is no doubt that a good deal of the work will be difficult. That Act has not satisfied all the would-be reformers, but the Act does represent a very great experiment in social and judicial reform, and it is only fair that the experiment should be conducted with the greatest care, caution and expedition, so that the merits of the reform may be properly tried and its supposed perils duly appraised. But if the work is difficult, that is all the more reason for the policy incorporated in the Amendment. There is no good in pretending otherwise. The two new Judges will be men appointed for their experience in divorce work. That work, as a rule, requires no very special qualifications, but the qualifications which are required before a man establishes a position at the Bar and is appointed a Judge, are capacity for understanding the law and being able to act with judicial discretion. If the work is difficult, it seems to me all the more reason why men should he appointed with wide experience of a general character.
I regret that this Bill has been introduced now, because it seems to me that it is closing the doors for many years to come to the consideration of practical alternatives. There are alternatives There is the one incorporated in the Amendment, which has been discussed so well by my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the establishment of three divisions has a great deal of support. I am sorry that the Government have not considered this more carefully before introducing this Bill. They have had time to do so. But, supposing that the Government say, "We want people experienced in divorce work, and divorce work alone," then here is another suggestion. Instead of appointing two judges, who will take rank as puisne judges in the


Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, you should appoint two, or, if you like, three men, not exactly holding that rank or with that salary, but having experience of divorce work and knowledge of divorce practice. They would probably be willing to accept office at a rate lower than the £5,000 which is given to puisne judges in the Bill; they would fulfil the requirements of the Government of having all the expert knowledge of divorce work, and they could sit in London and be sent to the provinces as occasion arises. That would secure the release of some of the judges of the King's Bench Division who are now called up to try cases at assizes. But there is also something to be said from another point of view for making the hearing of divorce cases more easy in the provinces. There is the question of expense and convenience. There is also a good deal to be said for hearing these cases in the locality in which they have arisen.
There is a third proposal, which I have heard adumbrated now and again, that undefended divorce cases should be sent to the county court. It is very rarely that they raise any question of legal or technical difficulty, and there is no doubt that county court judges in increased numbers would be thoroughly competent to deal with these cases. Several suggestions have been made for dealing with this matter, as has been the case in respect of the reform of the system of the High Court in general, and I regret that this Bill has been introduced now, because it defers the practical consideration of these alternatives for an indefinite period. We have had information to-day of the immense loss of time occupied by courts in this country hearing matrimonial cases. We know how necessary is the extension asked for by this Bill. This sort of thing shows us the revolutionary changes that have taken place in recent generations in the social customs of the people and in the reaction of the public conscience to those changes. I have no doubt that there will be a demand for further changes in the future, but these matters give cause for very deep reflection as to what may happen in the future. Personally, I hope that with greater knowledge, wider education and better social conditions, the urgency for these extensive provisions may gradually diminish.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Lyons: Whatever happens to this Bill to-night, I hope that we shall be informed, before it leaves us, that it is certainly not to be the last word in respect of the reform which has been suggested so often. I believe that I shall be expressing the appreciation of every hon. Member present when I say how grateful we all are to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) for the informative and interesting speech which he has delivered. There is one point I would like to develop arising out of what he said, and it is a point which was touched upon by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). If this Bill goes through, the benefit of the judicial strength will be confined to London only. The judicial strength of the country, in my view, should be sufficient for the speedy needs of all the people who have to go to the courts. There is general agreement on the importance of maintaining judicial strength and ready, swift justice for all. The hon. and learned Member who spoke in support of the Bill just now said that my hon. and learned Friend had made a mistake when he said that undefended divorce cases only lasted five minutes, because they will soon last an hour and over on account of the extra burden placed upon the Judges by the new Act. If that be any argument at all, I hope that the House will bear in mind that that means that the need for increased assistance at assizes, becomes greater than ever. The extra Judges under this Bill will be put in the Divorce Court in London in order to cope with any extra work which may come there. There will be no power to utilize this additional strength on circuit.
We are reasonably told that additional work may be expected under the new law which comes into operation next year. Many of us opposed the passing of that law, but we are all agreed that it must be worked properly, speedily and efficiently. What is going to happen, if this Bill goes through, to the vast amount of work which will be added to that of His Majesty's Judges on circuit at assizes? I heard only last week of one of His Majesty's Judges being so occupied with other business that he had to postpone to the next assizes the whole of the divorce work on his list. If the two additional Judges are to be exclusively in the Divorce Division in London they will at


no time be available, so far as I understand it, to do additional work which must fall to the assize towns in England in consequence of the new law. It is obvious that if a lot of additional divorce work arises because of the new Act, it will not only be in the Metropolitan area where the work will increase, but in many assize towns in England. There will be a great increase of cases. It is not a complete way of dealing with the problem only to increase the judicial strength in London in such a manner that it is not available to take on the work of the circuits in assize towns. All of us will support a Measure which is to give better and more speedy justice, but we fear that there will not be the benefit that ought to be to the persons interested in assize towns. It is felt that it is a Measure which may delay a great and necessary reform, and I hope that, before the Bill receives a Second Reading, we shall have an assurance from the Government upon some of the points which we have tried to indicate in this Debate.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: Listening to the Debate, as I have done, the point which I most desire to make has been considerably reinforced in my mind. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) made out what I considered to be a completely unanswerable case, and it was so unanswerable in principle, that it is somewhat surprising that he should limit it as he did. The case for the Government Measure is that something has to be done immediately to meet a pressing emergency, and that wider measures, which, I imagine, everyone agrees to be necessary, should be deferred. I understood that the contention of the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment was that no harm would be done by rejecting the Government's Measure because in fact it would not meet the emergency which it was designed to meet. I would ask the hon. and learned Member whether his own proposal would really meet the need? His proposal is that new judges, if they be appointed, should not be appointed to administer divorce work in London only, but that they should be available for divorce work in the country on circuit. How far does that take us? I am entirely with that in principle. I do not know how long ago it is since the hon. and learned Member

practised on circuit, or what the conditions were at that time.

Mr. C. Davies: Five years.

Mr. Silverman: Then, I think that the conditions are not greatly changed, and the hon. and learned Member will know I am right when I say that all the important Assize centres to-day, including those where divorce business is taken, are so crammed and choked with business that it is impossible for justice to be effectively carried out even in respect of the work that now has to be done at Assizes,

Mr. C. Davies: I was aware of that fact—the same conditions applied when I was sitting on the commission—and my answer is, create more judges.

Mr. Silverman: I would accept that answer as being sufficient within the ambit of the point of view of my hon. and learned Friend, but I suggest that even that will not meet the case. I think we agree that at the moment, to appoint two more judges and send them on circuit would not meet, or anything like meet, the emergency which this Measure is designed to meet. The only way in which the Assize work is now completely disposed of in the time allotted is by one-half of the litigants at most Assizes not having their cases tried at all, but coming together and, in despair, settling their disputes. I do not complain of that in the least, but if disputes are capable of settlement and ought to be settled, as many of them ought to be, they ought to be settled long before they reach the stage of being set down for trial at Assizes and incurring all the expenses which have then been incurred. By the time that is done expense has been incurred by both sides without any corresponding ad vantage whatever. In order to dispose of the present work there ought to be some readjustment and certainly a number of additional judges. If you are not going to do that, or if you leave the position as it is, it will mean, as the hon. and learned Member and nearly every hon. Member who has taken part in the Debate agree, that justice will be denied.
I have endeavoured to establish the point that to appoint two more Judges and send them round to assizes to do divorce work would not meet the need. But there is something else which the Bill does not do, and which the Mover of the Amendment would like to see done. It does not deal with the question of costs


and expenses in the least. I think that it is agreed by everybody that the judicial system of this country does nothing whatever to meet the needs of the vast range of possible litigants between the very poor and those to whom money is no object at all. If we were to have all divorce business of this kind triable at assizes, I agree that that would go some way towards meeting the difficulty, but it would not go very far. It would be a step, but a very short step, and so the last stage would be no better than the first, because the cost of trial, at any rate, of a defended petition, and probably of an undefended petition, at assizes, is almost as much beyond the means of middle-class people as trial in London is beyond their means. You would not be getting very much nearer to the satisfactory administration of justice by saying that, "Whereas a trial in London would cost three times as much as you could afford, trial at assizes is better for you, because it would only cost twice as much' as you could afford." That does not take you very far at all; it does not improve the position very much. I cannot for the life of me see why the Government should hesitate to tackle the question, broadly and boldly, except that there is no question with which they have to deal that they are ever prepared to tackle broadly and boldly. But it could be done without any great change of policy and without any great expense.
The hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) referred to the county court and suggested—I do not know why he did it so tentatively or so apologetically—the possible trial of undefended divorce cases at that court. Why undefended? I was in this House, as, I think, were many of those who have taken part in this Debate, when the House was considering the proposal to increase the salaries of county court judges. Every speaker in that Debate paid a very high tribute to the county court bench, to the ability of the county court judges and their special qualifications for dealing with the lives and conditions of poor people, because they understand them. Therefore, what subject of litigation could be better within the ambit of a capable county court judge than the average divorce case, whether defended or undefended? Matrimonial disputes do not always result in divorce. This House last Session, in dealing with

matrimonial disputes which are not quite so fatal to the consortium, decided that it was advisable to have courts of matrimonial relations, and they gave the decision on some very technical and difficult matters to lay benches. We were right to do that. Why, then, should we hesitate about making justice quickly and cheaply available in the locality where the dispute arises by allowing the county court to have jurisdiction in divorce cases?
I do not like the indiscriminate transfer of High Court work to county court benches, because everybody has the right to have his case heard and determined in the High Court, within limits, and the limits are that there are certain classes of cases which are eminently well fitted to be tried in the locality by a judge of experience. Such a proposal would have an additional advantage. I understand that the Government's main argument for dealing with this matter in the way proposed is that it must be dealt with speedily, that there is an immediate problem to be dealt with at once and that the proposal to increase the numerical strength of the judicial bench and make arrangements necessary for trying divorce cases on circuit might occasion delay which could not be afforded. In that case, my proposal would meet the difficulty. It would not take a long time to pass a Measure to extend the jurisdiction of the county court so as to cover this question. A lot of new machinery would not be needed; in fact, there would be no need of new machinery. The problem would be doubly solved. The immediate urgency would be dealt with, and not merely that which affects the small section of people who can afford to go to court. We should be dealing with the whole question and not with a very small fringe of it.

Sir J. Withers: Does the hon. Member mean that the registrar of the county court could act as registrar in all interlocutory application in the same way as as a registrar of the Divorce Division?

Mr. Silverman: Why not? He deals with a great many questions now which are equally difficult and equally technical. Two Acts which were passed by this House, both administrable in the county court, were definitely allocated to the county court, and those Acts contain more technical questions, have been


more difficult to decide and have produced more litigation than any other Act. One was the Workmen's Compensation Act and the other the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act. Both were intended to be quick methods of dealing with immediate questions without technicalities and difficulties, and they were sent to the county court for that reason. Is there anything which is likely to be more difficult or more technical than the questions which have arisen under those two Acts? If I thought so, I should not be making this suggestion.
Let us take justice to the doors of the people where we can. It may be that that is not always possible, but here it is possible. If the Government would deal with the matter in that way the advantages of an act of social reform and justice passed by both Houses would be made readily available to poor people. so that there would cease to be discrimination between the rich and the poor in the way in which justice is obtained. Is it possible even now at this late stage to ask the Government whether they cannot reconsider this matter and deal with the whole problem in a way that is quicker than the way they have proposed, seeing that it is speed with which they are apparently most concerned?

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: I have listened with great interest to the discussion and was particularly interested in the historical resumé given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). It was a masterly resume of the question. I can go further back than he did. I can remember well the late Lord St. Helier (Sir Francis Jeune), and I can go back to a more remote distance and recall Lord Hannon, who was probably the ablest of the men who occupied the chair in the Divorce Division. I cannot support a proposal which is going to condemn two men to divorce work only. That we should select two men who should have the misery of continuously trying divorce cases is a proposal that I cannot support.
May I mention a little experience of my own, which is my principal reason for speaking to-day? When I was a young man reading for the Bar a certain eminent solicitor, the father of one of the present Judges of the High Court, said to me, "I think, Fraser, there is a good

opportunity for a man in the Divorce Court at the present time. Ii I were you I should go and read with So-and-so "—mentioning the name of an eminent junior in the Divorce Court—" and attend the court regularly and see how you like it. If you take up work in that court I think there is a chance of making something of your professional life." I took his advice and went regularly for a long time every day to the Divorce Court. I sat there and heard the long series of sorrowful stories, the long tales of treachery and infidelity, until at last I began to feel that I could not believe there was any faithfulness in human nature at all. One was soaking, soaking all the time in a continuous series of sordid tales, and I finally came to the conclusion that no remuneration would be a compensation for the soaking of one's life in the continual atmosphere of the Divorce Court. With that experience in mind I am not going to vote for devoting two Judges to a life which I found absolutely impossible.

5.39 p.m.

Sir William Davison: I have listened to most of the Debate. This is in no sense a party matter. The Debate has revealed general agreement on nearly all points, and I would ask the Attorney-General to give very careful consideration to what has been said. I cannot accept the Bill in its present form. There has been testimony from all parts of the House to the Amendment, which has been so ably moved, and I think the Government would be well advised to consider carefully the terms of that Amendment. I would draw the attention of the Government to the unanimity on several points which has been arrived at from all sides (1) that there is considerable delay in the administration of justice; (2) that in the Divorce Division there are already very serious arrears and cases are being held up and carried forward because they are not able to be dealt with, and (3) that the legislation which was passed by this House last Session for extending the grounds for divorce will involve a considerable addition to the work of the Divorce Court, not only an addition in that there will be a new kind of case brought before the court, but delay will be involved in the trial of divorce cases because the Judges will have to come to decisions upon matters which hitherto they were not bound to investigate.
These are points on which the House is in general agreement. That being so, why do the Government propose to appoint only two additional Judges and to confine their work to one division only and, as would be inevitable if the Bill passes in its present form, to confine them to London, although there is a vast amount of divorce work which has to be dealt with in the Provinces? The appointment of two Judges is quite inadequate. I agree with the terms of the Amendment that the two Judges should be members of the King's Bench and be able to go anywhere where their services are required. Even so, the addition of two Judges will be inadequate. I have never been able to understand the delay in appointing additional Judges, seeing that justice is delayed not only for months but sometimes for more than a year.
If the appointment of additional Judges necessitated vast expense to the community, I could understand the delay. If ii: could be said that we are engaged in national rearmament or that there are poor people whose pensions ought to be increased, and we cannot afford to appoint Judges, I could understand arguments for delay; but these appointments really cost nothing. Every Judge who is appointed more than earns, by the fees of his court, the amount of his salary. Why, then, is there this unwillingness on the part of the Government to appoint, say, four Judges, in order to clear off arrears and be prepared for the additional business that undoubtedly will come before the Courts next January? I beg the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter. It is it: the national interest to do so. We are justly famed for our administration of justice. Why, then, should justice be hindered by delays in its administration? We read of hundreds of cases that are held over month after month. Surely, when the appointment of new Judges really costs nothing to the country, because they earn their salaries through the fees charged in their courts the Government might appoint more Judges.

5.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): The speech of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) confirms my impression that

there is some misapprehension about the scope of the Bill. For the purposes of greater accuracy I have acquired a copy of the Gracious Speech from the Throne, which will still be fresh in the minds of hon. Members. In that Speech it says:
Proposals will be laid before you for providing such additional judicial strength for the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division as will enable the High Court to discharge the additional duties laid upon it by the Matrimonial Causes Act of last Session; for carrying out some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Despatch of Business at Common Law.
That is the Commission which has been referred to in the course of the Debate and appropriately drawn upon by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Clement Davies). That Commission canvassed, among other matters, the question of the fusion of the divisions and also the extension of the Circuit system, but I am afraid that I must ask hon. Members to await that Bill. That is the second Measure referred to in the Gracious Speech. What my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has presented to the House this afternoon is a Measure very much narrower in scope and limited to the objects which he described. They cannot be better summarised than they were by my hon. and learned Friend, but lest they may have been overlooked let me repeat them. This is a Bill to deal with a present and pressing problem, the problem that the Divorce Court at the present time is unable to cope with the work before it. The undefended cases are 300 in excess of what existed this time last year, but there is only a very short list of Common jury cases at present. There were 10 special jury cases for trial set down, some of them last March, but perhaps the most serious feature is the number of defended non-jury cases, 596, awaiting trial. Hon. Members have only to visualise the aggregate of misery which that figure implies. It is a figure greatly in excess of anything that occurred a year ago. In addition to that, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, Admiralty work has been heavier, fortunately, than it has been at any time in recent years, and although there has been no net loss of judicial time in that division owing to illness, it is perfectly clear that the existing Judge power of that division is inadequate to cope with its existing work.

Mr. Silverman: May I ask whether the figures given by the Solicitor-General are the figures of cases which have already got so far as to be entered for trial or whether they include all cases which are almost ready for entry for trial but have not yet been entered?

The Solicitor-General: No. The figures I have given are of cases which are actually in the list, the parties are ready and they have been ready for a year or more without getting their cases tried. That is the problem which would have arisen if the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) had never introduced his Bill—the strengthening of the Divorce Division. But there is a further problem raised by the hon. Member's Bill, and that is a factor which one can surmise but cannot calculate with accuracy. One thing is perfectly certain, and that is that the Matrimonial Causes Act will result in more work, and it is largely owing to the combination of these two circumstances that this Bill has been introduced. But it does not deal with the bigger problems raised by several hon. Members. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) and one or two other hon. Members have spoken about the possibility of extending divorce work so that cases could be tried in the county courts. That would have been an appropriate Amendment to the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Oxford University but it has nothing to do with this Bill. This Bill is riot an attempt to cope with that situation, and if hon. Members had that at heart they should have put forward their Amendments when we were discussing the Matrimonial Causes Bill, and the way they should be tried—

Mr. Silverman: I did not have the advantage of being on the Committee.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member could have moved his Amendment on Report stage. I am pointing out that that method of dealing with divorce work is not germane to the present Bill, nor I suggest is the question raised by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire—the reorganisation of the King's Bench Division, because that is what it involves. No doubt it will be appropriate for the hon. and learned Member to raise that matter when we come to consider the Bill dealing with the Report of the Royal Commission on

which he himself served. It will then be open to him to say, "It does not go far enough; it does not carry out my minority suggestions." But this is not the appropriate moment to deal with that matter, when we are discussing a Bill to deal with a pressing emergency, and an emergency which will increase next year.

Mr. C. Davies: I suggest that one way of dealing with the emergency is to give more power to the Judges already in existence outside the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division; if you like to add to them. The Government have only to apply to the House by Special Resolution to do that.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member is perfectly right. There are more ways of killing a dog than by choking it with melted butter. But his proposal demands much wider considerations than a proposal dealing with the arrears of the Divorce Court and the impending increase in the work of that court. It brings in the whole issue, whether the work of the Divorce Division is no longer to be performed by that division alone but is to be merged in the general business of the King's Bench Division and the Chancery Division. My hon. and learned Friend did not face that position with the firmness of the hon. Member opposite. He at any rate said that the time has come to abandon all these divisions in the High Court, to do away with the divisions into King's Bench Division, Chancery Division, and Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and allow judges to be available equally for any of the work that comes in.
I can understand that argument, but I would point out in answer that the proposal has never yet been put before any of the Commissions which have considered the work of the Judges. It was not suggested to the Peel Commission or to the Hanworth Commission. What was suggested to the Hanworth Commission, and commended itself to them, was the proposal that the Divorce Court should disappear and its work divided up among the King's Bench and Chancery Divisions. They made that proposal the subject of an interim report in which they recommended it. Let me say this on that matter. The proposal met with a very great deal of reasoned opposition. It was the subject over a prolonged period of discussion in


the professional Press by people who knew the work of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Court, and it did not commend itself to the Lord Chancellor of the time. The Government did not proceed with it. It was then raised anew before the Royal Commission on which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire sat, and I venture to disagree with him in his suggestion that they did not turn the proposal down. I propose to read from the report of the Majority of that Royal Commission. In paragraph 180, on page 62, they say:
We discuss elsewhere the difficulties of organisation involved in the King's Bench Division with its existing large staff of judges and diverse functions. It seems therefore that, whatever benefits the proposed fusion with the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division might bring, it clearly would not assist the despatch of business in the King's Bench Division, but rather increase the already formidable problems of its administration.
If that is approving a proposal it is the faintest form of approval that I know. They go on to say:
We cannot therefore recommend the proposed amalgamation. We must regard it as foreign to the immediate purpose of our inquiry. But the fact remains that a large proportion of the divorce work is discharged, not by the Division specially maintained in London for the purpose, but by common law judges on circuit, without the experience and assistance in the trial of divorce postulated as necessary by the very existence of this special Division.
Having read these observations from the Majority Report it is clear, in my submission, although it was not a specific problem but rather a subsidiary problem before the Commission, that it is very far from correct to suggest that the majority of that Royal Commission were in favour of the recommendation that the Divorce Court should be abolished. Therefore, the position is that it was only recommended in the interim report of the Hanworth Committee, and was not adopted. But it must not be thought, and the Government do not ask the House to think, that in supporting this Measure to-day it will be closing the door to a possible fusion of the divisions in future. It would be wrong to suggest that the appointment of two more judges to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division will prevent a fusion being carried out later on if it should become practicable. That issue will remain exactly the same as it is today and will be quite unprejudiced if the

House sees fit to pass this Bill. With that explanation and that assurance, I hope hon. Members will feel that the Bill is not closing the door upon the larger issue which might be raised on another and more appropriate occasion.
The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, Sir S. Cripps was inclined to suggest that we should strengthen the general body of Judges and then draw upon them to add to the strength of this particular division. That, of course, depends upon the postulate that there is a general body of Judges not divided up into divisions, a postulate which, as I have said, has not been examined by an authoritative body. If the hon. and learned Gentleman meant that we should strengthen the King's Bench Division and draw upon that to help in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, I suggest that it is not a very satisfactory way of dealing with this particular situation to make the efficiency of this division dependent upon borrowing Judges from one of the other divisions. I suggest that in a situation in which the administration of justice is faced with work which overwhelmingly exceeds its powers, the proper way is to strengthen the division that has to deal with these cases. If, later on, it should be the wish of Parliament that the method of dividing up the work should be changed, that is a matter for another Measure of much more ample scope than the present one.
Finally, again arising from the same approach to the problem, there is the question of bringing justice to the door, and of increasing the number of assize towns in which divorce cases may be tried. That again is not specifically a matter for this Bill; indeed, I do not believe it is a matter for any Bill, because I think that under the existing Judicature Act the Lord Chancellor has power to do most of the things that are necessary to increase the number of assize towns, and that there are very few things that cannot be done under the existing powers. If there should be some things for which fresh powers would be necessary, they would have to be sought in the wider Measure of which I have spoken.
It must be borne in mind that it is not for reasons of mere caprice that divorce cases are not tried in all assize towns. Part, and not by any means the least


considerable part, of divorce court work, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), who spoke with very great experience, is the interlocutory work, the vital work of dealing with the custody of children and questions of maintenance, alimony and so on, all of which work is done in the registries. In order that divorce work shall be efficiently done on circuit, it is essential that there should be properly trained registrars where the cases are to be tried, and that they should be available to substitute clerks of assize when the cases come up for trial. The view that has hitherto prevailed—and I think it is a matter not for legislation but for rules—is that it is better to have a comparatively limited number of assize towns—at present 36 out of 56—in which divorce cases may be tried. Divorce jurisdiction is given to 36 out of 90 district registries of the Supreme Court, so that there may be properly trained registrars available to help the court to deal with those cases. If it should be possible and desirable to extend this activity to a larger number of towns, I do not think it would be necessary for the House to refuse the Second Reading of this Bill in order that it might be done, for it really has nothing whatever to do with the Bill.
I think I have dealt with all the reasons for which the Bill has been challenged. It has been agreed that the emergency exists, it has been agreed that it can be met only by more judges, and it has been agreed that under the present structure the strength of those judges will best be utilised in this division. Therefore, I suggest that the House should give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said that hon. Members on this side would support the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Clement Davies) unless a really sound case for not

doing so was put forward by the Solicitor-General. I do not think the Solicitor-General has discharged that task. We look with very great suspicion upon a Bill of this kind dealing with the reform of our judicial system. It is terribly hard to get any reform in our legal system, and in this Bill the Government seem to be taking the simplest way out—just putting a couple more judges in the division, and hoping to carry on. There may be a bird in the bush, but it seems to be a long way off. It is precisely the existence of this pressure that gives to the public concerned the chance of trying to get some sort of move.

I do not think the Solicitor-General has really answered the point that the position would be met just as well if there were two—and more if necessary—additional King's Bench Division Judges. The mere fact of appointing two judges to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division tends to keep things as they are and to keep specialised judges in existence. It is true that there is a great deal of work to be done, and that a great many cases will come forward as a result of the Act that was passed last Session; but it is a fact that there is a vast mass of poor people whose cases will not get attention. It may be that even the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire does not meet that situation, but undoubtedly this Bill does not. That is a matter which concerns us. I am afraid that if the House quietly accepts this Bill, we shall hear nothing more of any Measure of reform. I hope that in a matter which is not a party matter but one which affects thousands of people throughout the country now and which will affect them in the future, the House will decline to accept this makeshift Bill, and will support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 103.

Division No. 5.]
AYES.
[6.10 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Aske, Sir R. W.
Bernays, R. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Assheton, R.
Bird, Sir R. B.


Albery, Sir Irving
Atholl, Duchess of
Bossom, A. C.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittars


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Bower, Comdr. R. T.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Barrie, Sir C. C.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Apsley, Lord
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.




Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Peake, O.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Pilkington, R.


Butler, R. A.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Procter, Major H. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Radford. E. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Channon, H.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Christie, J. A.
Joel, D. J. B.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cox, H. B. T.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lewis, O.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Crooke, J. S.
Lloyd, G. W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cross, R. H.
Loftus, P. C.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crossley, A. C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Davidson, Viscountess
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dawson, Sir P.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Storey, S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McKie, J. H.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Denville, Alfred
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Doland, G. F.
Macquisten, F. A.
Strauss, H. C. (Norwich)


Donner, P. W.
Magnay, T.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Maitland, A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Eastwood, J. F.
Markham, S. F.
Tate, Mavis C.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marsden, Commander A.
Touche, G. C.


Ellis, Sir G.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Turton, R. H.


Elmley, Viscount
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Watt, G. S. H.


Findlay, Sir E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Moreing, A. C.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Gluckstein, L. H.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Goldie, N. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wise, A. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Munro, P.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)



Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hambro, A. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Mr. Grimston and Major Sir


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
James Edmondson.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Adamson, W. M.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'[...]sbr.)
Foot, D. M.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Gallacher, W.
Kirkwood, D.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gardner, B. W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Banfield, J. W.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Lawson, J. J.


Batey, J.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leach, W.


Bellenger, F. J.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lee, F.


Bevan, A.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Leonard, W.


Broad, F. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Leslie, J. R.


Bromfield, W.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Lunn, W.


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Cape, T.
Groves, T. E.
McGhee, H. G.


Charleton, H. C.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
MacLaren, A.


Chater, D.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
MacNeill, Weir, L.


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marshall, F.


Cove, W. G.
Hardie, Agnes
Mathers, G.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Harris, Sir P. A.
Maxton, J.


Daggar, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Messer, F.


Dobbie, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Montague, F.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jagger, J.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Ede, J. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Paling, W.







Parker, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Watkins, F. C.


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Watson, W. McL.


Quibell, D. J. K.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Ridley, G.
Stephen, C.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Rothschild, J. A. de
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Sexton. T. M.
Thorne, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Shinwell, E.
Tinker, J. J.



Short, A.
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Silverman, S. S.
Walkden, A. G.
Mr. Clement Davies and Mr.


Simpson, F. B.
Walker, J.
D. O. Evans.


Question, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow."—[Mr. Grimston.]

Orders of the Day — SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, by increasing to four the number of puisne judges who may be appointed to be attached to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund and out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums equal to the amount of any increase which may be incurred by reason of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, out of the said Fund and out of moneys provided by Parliament, respectively."—[King' s Recommendation signified.]—[The Attorney-General.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses (if any) and the payment into the Exchequer of such receipts (if any) as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, being expenses and receipts directed by section five of that Act to be respectively defrayed out of such moneys and paid into the Exchequer; and
(2) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Board of Trade under Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, which may be occasioned by the continuance of that part of that Act."

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.

The Chairman: There is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean)—


Schedule, page 4, line 2, at end, insert,—


"23 &amp; 24 Geo. 5, c. 32.
Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933.
The whole Act.
—"


That Amendment is out of Order as it proposes to continue an Act which is not a temporary Act. A manuscript Amendment has been handed in by the the same hon. Member which is in Order.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, at the end, to insert:


"10 &amp; 11 Geo. 5, c. 17.
Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1920.
The whole Act.
14 &amp; 15 Geo. 5, c. 18.





15 &amp; 16 Geo. 5, c. 32.





23 &amp; 24 Geo. 5' c. 32.',


I am sorry that the Amendment did not appear on the Order Paper in the proper form. It has been put down in order to raise a point which has created some difficulty in my mind. In the past, Rent Restrictions Acts have been regarded as involving questions of major policy which Governments have considered worthy of inclusion in the King's Speech. It happens that next year the continuance of certain provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts will expire for Scotland in May and for England and Wales in June. I observed


with interest when I first listened to the King's Speech at the opening of the present Session, that while it foreshadowed a series of odds and ends of Bills, no reference whatever was made to the possibility of Rent Restrictions legislation, although that is a question affecting millions of people. It is, of course, within the knowledge of hon. Members that the Government set up a committee of inquiry into this matter. I imagine that that committee is now drawing near to the end of its deliberations. In the circumstances one expected a reference to new legislation in the Gracious Speech, but, as I say, there was no such reference.
A few days ago, when I looked at the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill I found there was no reference in it to continuing those sections of the Rent Restrictions Acts which normally should be continued. I felt that the Government could not have it both ways. Should this Departmental Committee prove to be recalcitrant, and should the right hon. Gentleman not get its report in time then, once this Bill has been passed, he will be faced with a dilemma from which I wish him to escape. By June of next year many of the provisions of the existing Acts would come to an end, and my purpose in moving this Amendment is to ask the Government what are their intentions in the matter. I think it regrettable that the question was not judged by the Government to be of sufficient importance to justify its inclusion in the King's Speech, having regard to some of the other Measures which are there outlined. Alternatively I submit that the Government ought to have protected themselves against the possibility of delay in the presentation of the report to which I have referred by including these Measures in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I hope, therefore, that either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will make a statement as to the Government's intentions with regard to future legislation on this subject.

6.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said there was some difficulty in his mind as to the attitude of the Government on the question of rent restriction, and I am very glad to have this opportunity of trying to resolve that difficulty for him. The Government

have, of course, been giving very close attention to this matter, knowing that the Rent Restrictions Act was due to expire on 24th June, 1938. As long ago as last summer, my right hon. Friend, after surveying the position, decided to appoint a Departmental Committee to examine the new position that had been created by the recent boom in private enterprise building, and their terms of reference were:
To inquire and report on the working of the Rent Restrictions Acts and to advise what steps should be taken to continue, terminate, or amend those Acts.
As the House will remember, the three principal Rent Restrictions Acts have all been passed following upon the inquiry of a Departmental Committee. The Act of 1920 followed the report of Lord Salisbury's Committee, the Act of 1923, Lord Onslow's Committee, and the Act of 1933, Lord Marley's Committee. Thus my right hon. Friend has followed the procedure of successive Governments when any amendment of the law has been contemplated by setting up a Departmental inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that that inquiry must be drawing to an end of its deliberations, and that is perfectly true. The report of that inquiry will be in the hands of my right hon. Friend in a few weeks' time, and it will be published. In view of that fact, it is obviously not necessary to put the Rent Restrictions Acts in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, since, in the light of the recommendations of that inquiry, the new legislation will be introduced before the Rent Restrictions Act expires, and upon that my right hon. Friend is prepared to give this specific pledge, that he will certainly introduce new legislation well before the present Act expires and, he hopes, quite early in next year. It will be passed through all its stages well before June, 1938. [Interruption.] Well, we shall submit it to the House to be passed through all its stages, and I hope we shall have the co-operation of the right hon. Member for Wakefield. I hope that, after that specific statement and assurance that I have been authorised by my right hon. Friend to give, the right hon. Gentleman will not find it necessary to press his Amendment.

Mr. Greenwood: I do not wish to press the Amendment, but it still remains a mystery to me why the Government's major propagandist should not have put this Bill in the King's Speech.

6.33 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): You cannot have everything in the King's Speech, and I must say, from the point of view of the Ministry of Health, that I do not think I have done very badly. In fact, as the committee was sitting, I thought it was evident to everybody that the Government had this matter very closely in mind and indeed that my right hon. Friend would understand that legislation would be brought in at the appropriate time. I need hardly remind him, because I think it has been said before, that simply because it is not mentioned in the King's Speech, it does not mean that we do not attach great importance to it. I think the same criticism was made with reference to the League of Nations, but when the records were searched and the books were gone through, it was found that actually in the time of the Labour Government, when the late Arthur Henderson was Foreign Secretary, there was no mention of the League of Nations then, so that I hope no one will feel that any criticism is necessary so far as the omission of rent restriction is concerned.

Mr. Montague: Since the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee were that they should advise what steps should be taken to continue, terminate, or amend the Rent Restrictions Acts, how is it that before the report of that committee has been issued the Government have decided that they must pass legislation on the subject? Has the policy of the Government been decided in advance of the report of the committee?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. If, for instance, the committee advise that rent restriction shall finish to-morrow, which I hardly anticipate, there will obviously have to be amending legislation in order to clear up the present position, as we could not leave the matter as it is. Anyone who has given study to this matter knows that following the termination of such an Act, even if it were to-morrow morning, you would have to have legislation to clear up the whole matter.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: I put it to the Government that when the Rent Restrictions Act is under review, they will have regard to the notorious position in which the majority of the house-owners of this coun-

try find themselves at the moment. The Rent Restrictions Act is to protect the tenants from the property owners of this country, and the position to-day is worse, as far as the tenants are concerned. They are needing more protection than ever they had before, so that I hope the Government will have that in view, particularly as far as Scotland is concerned. Our condition there is absolutely scandalous. It is not as if we had not something to go by to safeguard the idea that supply and demand increase or lower the price. Supply and demand during the War, when the engineers were in a position to demand anything they liked, the Government of the day, through the Defence of the Realm Act, made it impossible for the engineer to get any increase in his wages, because they said it was for the good of the country at large. Now I hold that it is for the good of the country at large to legislate for the greatest number, and the greatest number in this case are the tenants and the lesser number the house-owners, so that I hope the Government will have that in view.
It is not the case that private enterprise has supplied the want, because, so far as house-building is concerned, private enterprise has miserably failed. I can speak authoritatively as far as Scotland, particularly the West of Scotland, is concerned, and I say that private enterprise is building no houses to let. It is building houses to sell, but it has absolutely refused to build houses to let. I took one of the biggest builders in this country, McAlpine, to see the Secretary of State for Scotland after he had promised me that he was going to build 600 houses in the Clydebank, where we are in desperation. Think of our situation. Houses in Clydebank are falling down—it is no exaggeration—and we have no houses for the people to go into. There is not an empty house in Clydebank, and the result is that we have to put them into the pavilions of bowling greens. There is a state of affairs. When he went before the Secretary of State for Scotland, he was quite prepared to build 600 houses, but he discovered that it was not going to be a paying proposition, and the result is that we got no houses.
There are the people whom you want to defend your country if the Germans or somebody else happens to come across, and they have no place to stay. What is


the use of a country like that? It is of no use to these folk. It is all right for folk who have comfortable positions and good homes. They have something to defend, but thousands of people in this country have nowhere to live, and I want to press on the Government how essential it is to keep the Rent Restrictions Ad as it is, as far as the tenants are concerned. No one in this party will stand for allowing any increase in the rents. We have been sent here from Scotland, if possible, to bring the rents back to the pre-war level. We are not looking after the interest of the individual who has two or three houses, as is the case in England. Ours is quite a different proposition. I could mention one who owns, in my constituency, 10,000 homes, so it is not a matter of two or three little cottages, as they have in some towns in England. I therefore hope the Government will have due regard to these facts, because they are very serious.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Ross Taylor: I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give us any indication as to when amending legislation will be introduced to the Coal Mines Act, Part I, which is to be prolonged until the end of August, 1938. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must be very well aware that there is a great deal of discontent on the part of consumers, owing to the fact that the Committees of Investigation set up under Part I of the Act are very ineffective, and chambers of commerce, municipalities, and public utilities find that they have no proper means of redress. It is most essential that some Amendment should be introduced to give them the necessary protection against what is now a complete monopoly, and I shall be very glad if my right hon. and gallant Friend can give me an indication of the possible date of new legislation on this subject.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The fact that Part I of the 1930 Act is proposed to be continued for eight months only whereas the other Acts are being continued for 12 months will indicate that the Government are intending to proceed with no

avoidable delay, but I will bring what my hon. Friend has said to the notice of my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines.

6.43 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I think we ought to have the Minister of Mines here. We are entitled to know what the Government's intention is in this matter. After all, this is a Bill which has been on the Order Paper for some days, and as we have such a very distinguished number of Ministers here, we ought to have somebody to give a plain answer to a very courteous inquiry made by one of their own supporters. I assume that if the request had been made from the Front Opposition Bench, a Minister would have been present to reply, but a Government supporter is a representative and is equally entitled to full information when he raises an important question.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. R. Gibson: There is another Act in this Schedule to which I desire to call attention, and that is the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934. It is proposed that the whole Act should be continued, but in my submission the Act is not operating satisfactorily. I had occasion in February of this year to draw the attention of the House and of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to a very serious case of injustice. While the Government propose to continue the Act I submit that it is the time when injustices should be remedied. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will recall the case I have in mind of a gentleman living in Greenock and carrying on business as an agent and acting for a firm in Newfoundland which had trading relations with Spain. At the time of his death in June, 1936, a sum of £11,000 was due from the Spanish interests to the firm in Newfoundland, and a cheque for £5,000 was sent to Greenock by the Anglo-Spanish Clearing House in London. When the cheque arrived the gentleman who had been carrying on' business as agent had died. That cheque, I take, was sent bona fide with the intention that it should be honoured. Accordingly, the money represented by the cheque must have been segregated or earmarked for the payment of that particular sum to the Greenock firm, but it was not paid over.
This seems to be the time when that injustice should be remedied. The money


has been held up from the end of June, 1936, to the present time, and not a penny has been paid. I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sees that, if this matter is allowed to go on, it may go on indefinitely. The facts are within the recollection of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I would like him to be able to make a statement which will assure those in Greenock, and particularly the executrix of the agent, who have been waiting for this money in order to pass it on to Newfoundland where money is urgently required. If such an assurance can be given it will be welcomed not only in Greenock but in Newfoundland, and it would be an assurance that the Act will not continue a condition of things which is eminently unjust.

6.48 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to discuss the whole policy of the Act but wishes rather to draw attention again to a particular case which he brought before the House some months ago. If he wishes an explanation of the working of the Act and the clearing agreements which we have negotiated, I shall be glad to give it, but I understand that he simply refers to the difficulties which were occasioned in the case which he mentioned. The Spanish Clearing Agreement cannot be worked satisfactorily while that country is in the throes of civil war. Its operation has been completely suspended for the moment and the sterling standing to the credit of the clearing office has been paid into a reserve fund with the Bank of England until a further Treasury order is made under the Act providing for its disbursement.

Mr. Gibson: Is not the amount about £1,000,000?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I cannot say without notice, but I believe that the actual amount is somewhere in the neighbourhood of that figure. A very considerable sum has been paid into the Bank of England as a reserve pending a further Treasury order as to its disbursement. It is not possible for me to say when such an order can be made. The President of the Board of Trade informed the House recently, in reply to a question,

that a meeting had been held with the Advisory Committee which advises the Government on the operation of these clearing houses—a body representative of trade and industry—and it was explained that the present circumstances made it impossible to recommence the operation of the Spanish Clearing House at the present time; but the Government will have full regard to the position of those who are waiting to receive payment as soon as it is possible to re-open the Spanish Clearing House arrangements.
The case which the hon. and learned Member brought before the House some months ago had peculiar features, and it was one with which I should have felt a great deal of sympathy if it had been possible to make an exception, but I was advised that it would have been illegal for us to do other than we did, namely, to stop the payment in this case at the time when the general stoppage of other payments took place. All I can do is to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that that case is not forgotten and will certainly be remembered as soon as it is possible to make payment. On the general question of the continuance of this Act, it has been found necessary to have these powers. There are only four clearing agreements in which this country is engaged, and we hope we shall not have to add to them. There are certain cases where it is impossible to get payment for our nationals without the application of a clearing order, but we shall use these powers sparingly because it is not our policy to establish clearing agreements if we can possibly avoid it.

Mr. Gibson: Is the reserve sum in the Bank of England credited with any interest? Will there be anything in addition to the capital sum available for the legal representatives in the case of a Greenock agent whom I mentioned?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask the Secretary for Mines whether he has had any representations from the Miners' Federation about the amendment of the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912? Some of us have had representations from district organisations, and I meet from time to time men who tell me that they are not


receiving the minimum wage of the district, although they are under that standard, and that they are simply ignored by their employers. Does the Secretary for Mines ever receive information of that kind? When a man is ill he is excluded from the operation of the minimum wage, and it has been brought to my knowledge during the last few months that men who have been unemployed for any length of time are denied the minimum wage. Looking at it from the point of view of business, that is a foolish action on the part of the employers. A man came to me recently whose wage for working at the coal face for his first week was 17s. He was not given a minimum wage because of the operation of the provision under which a man who is sick is denied the operation of the Act for a month, but I find that that is applied generally to men who have been unemployed.
There is considerable feeling about this, and the Minister of Labour will tell the Secretary for Mines that in some cases like this the men have to give up work. They cannot carry on with the wage they are getting and they give up work, not because they desire to be idle, but because they are not getting sufficient income compared with what they would get when unemployed. The case that I have mentioned was brought to me within the last week or two. The minimum wage from the first was fixed deliberately low in order, so far as the piece-rate men were concerned, to give the pull of endeavour. These wages have not advanced to any extent since they were fixed in 1912. There are some men working in very difficult places in mines whose minimum wage would hardly be counted as worthy by some youth in factories. I remember when the minimum wage was 5s. 6d. a day, and then it was 6s. I venture to say that any hon. Member, or the average workman in this country, would, if he had only to walk from the shaft to the face in the average mine, consider that he had well earned his 6s. Unless they were in a fit condition they would feel next day as if they had been set upon by a score of bruisers. Some of these men have to work in seams of under two feet under difficult conditions. In the last few years the class of work has altogether changed. It was bad enough when they used to lay on their sides, but now they have to use the automatic machines, but

there has been no change in the standards of the minimum wage for this class of work.
The Committee will remember the case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) where men were working in a seam of 21 inches. It was beyond their ability to work with the automatic drill under those conditions. Men are working in these seams all over the country. I should be surprised if the Secretary for Mines has not received some representation on this matter from either private persons or some organisation. All I know is that my own organisation, the Durham Miners' Association, is dissatisfied, and is asking for an Amendment of this Minimum Wage Act because of the change of work and the particular points I have made to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I would ask him to take particular note of the fact that there are men up and down the country being denied their minimum wage without any explanation at all, merely because the owners in these cases think that they can get away with it. So I would ask him whether he has received any communication about this important matter, and whether he is prepared to consider if the time has arrived when, in view of the great change in the type of labour in mines, there should be reconsideration and Amendment of this Act.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: Before the Minister replies I feel called upon to say a few words of protest. There are nine Measures in this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, three of them being Bills which concern the Secretary for Mines. It seems to me a matter of common courtesy that Ministers who have to answer for Measures in this list should be in their places. An hon. Gentleman asked a question a few minutes ago for which there was a perfectly simple answer. We were fobbed off with a quite unintelligible answer.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: That was not my intention. My hon. and gallant Friend was outside. It was my intention that he should come in and answer the point, which was a very simple one, and I immediately communicated with him. He was only outside. The point is a simple one, and my hon. and gallant Friend intends to deal with it.

Mr. Greenwood: I am not on that point at all. In the case of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the least said the soonest mended. He ought to have waited until the Minister had come in. My point is this: It was discourteous to the Committee that, when this Bill of all Bills is before us, Ministers who may be called on to defend them are not in the Chamber when questions arise, and it imposes an impossible burden on the less informed Members of the Front Bench on the other side. I think I am acting in the interests of the whole Committee on that side as well as on this, in making this formal protest against the absence of Ministers.

7.4 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I hope I am the last person to wish to show any Member any discourtesy. I went out for only about two minutes when the right hon. Gentleman was moving an Amendment with which I was not concerned. Past experience has shown me that I can generally absent myself for five minutes when he is speaking. Many points of interest were developed during his speech, and there was some controversy with my hon. and gallant Friend here. I am, however, quite ready to apologise to the Committee.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) asked me whether I had received any representation at all as to the Minimum Wage Act, 1912. Speaking on the spur of the moment I have no recollection, certainly not of any representations made to me by such bodies as the Federation, whom I have had the pleasure of seeing in recent weeks on other matters. Certainly I have not heard anything in a formal way at all. Whether the matter has been mentioned casually in a letter I really cannot charge my memory at the moment. If he would care to discuss the point which he raised in regard to any specific case I shall be only too happy to deal with it. As the Bill stands, there is no possibility of amending the Act. It is only a question of its being continued. I am sure he and all other Members who sit for mining seats, and have the intimate knowledge that they do have as to complicated price lists, recognise that this individual minimum wage and the necessary district rules which go with it are the foundations on

which have been built up price lists. If the hon. Gentleman has any further point to raise I shall be only too happy to deal with it.
As regards the other question which my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Ross Taylor) put as to why the Coal Mines Act, 1930, appeared in the Schedule and also why it appeared for a broken period, the reason is quite simple. Part I of the Act of 1930 is the basis from which the existing selling schemes derive their statutory authority. That Act expires on 31st December this year. The Committee knows quite well that we are about to introduce a Measure dealing with coal, and in it, one of the points to be dealt with is the provision for extending the duration of the 1930 Act, and, subject to certain Amendments, to strengthen the constitution and the powers of the committees of investigation, which are the safeguards of the consumer. I am sure that even the most hard-working or enthusiastic Member of this House would not expect that, as the Government have only three days a week of Government time, it should pass through both Houses a major Coal Bill this side of Christmas. Therefore provision is taken to extend the existing Act in order to dovetail one into the other.
It was as an earnest to all those concerned that we deliberately extended it, not for the full period, which is normally 12 months, and that we extended it for that broken period so that it might not be said, "You are not going to do anything." We thought that would show that it was our intention to put before Parliament our proposals. Hon. Members will remember that in the Debate on the Address it was stared that we hoped to make good progress with this Bill before Christmas. Beyond that I do not think I can go.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

7.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time.''
The object of the Bill, as the House will realise, is to allow of the replenishment of the list of Land Tax Commissioners in cases where such replenishment is required. It is represented to us that in certain of the Land Tax Commission areas there is need for further appointments. In the past it used to be the practice to bring a Measure of this kind before Parliament about every four or five years, but in point of fact the last two Bills of this nature were in 1927 and in 1906. The Land Tax Commissioners are appointed in the first place by name by Act of Parliament, as in the present case. Justices of the peace for a county or borough are ex officio Land Tax Commissioners for that area.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does that apply to Scotland?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: It does not apply to Scotland. This Bill does not affect Scotland. The functions of the Land Tax Commissioners in connection with the old Land Tax which has been perpetual since 1798 are not very important, because the amount of money which comes from that tax, as the House knows, is not great, and their functions are rather stereotyped. There is, however, another function they discharge. Their importance at the present day lies to a great extent in the fact that they provide a source of recruitment for the local commissioners of Income Tax, who possess important and necessary functions in connection with the administration of the Income Tax.
Now the machinery in connection with the Bill is known to the House, but as it is some little time since a Measure of this kind was brought forward, perhaps it would be as well if I refreshed hon. Members' memory. The Parliamentary machinery consists of a one Clause Bill followed by three Resolutions. Departmental machinery arranges for notification to be sent to all bodies of local Land Tax Commissioners as soon as possible after the Second Reading of the Bill, so that wherever there is need for replenishment they can approach their members and suggest names for appointment as Land Tax Commissioners. The commissioners take the initiative, and the normal practice has been for the clerk to send to the Member for the division a list of the suggested names for these

appointments. The Member may accept that list or he may not. He has full discretion to alter it in any way in which he thinks wise. Names may be struck out or additional names inserted; but he must deal with the list in one way or another, and then it is delivered to the Public Bill Office. It is not necessary for the date when this should be done to be specified in the Resolutions. It is necessary only that a reasonable period should be allowed between the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill by which time the list should be deposited. The time normally allowed is about four or five weeks from the time of the Second Reading of the Bill to the Committee stage. When the Act is finally passed the names contained in the list are published in the London Gazette, and further steps are taken by the Department to secure further publicity for the list and notification of the new commissioners appointed.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) asked me whether this Bill affects Scotland. It does not. The Bill refers to England and Wales only; there is no necessity for a Bill of this nature, a "Names Bill," as it is called, in Scotland. Historically the reason is that prior to the enactment of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, the duties of Land Tax Commissioners were performed in that country by the Commissioners of Supply, who were not required to be appointed by a Names Act. But the Commissioners of Supply were abolished in 1930 and their functions were vested in the county councils, and the Finance Act of 1930 made provision for county councils to choose new general commissioners of Income Tax. That holds good in Scotland, except in the case of Edinburgh and Glasgow, where the appointing authorities are the burgh magistrates.
I notice that the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) is moving an Amendment to this Bill, and perhaps it would save time if I said a word or two about it now. I wonder whether there is not some misapprehension in his mind. The Bill does not, as his Amendment suggests, continue the obsolete machinery for the administration of Income Tax. What it does is to appoint additional commissioners for executing the Acts granting a Land Tax. The right hon. Gentleman


may say—as I myself said—that one of the most important functions of the Land Tax Commissioners is to provide a field of recruitment for Commissioners of Income Tax, and that is true, but the machinery for the administration of the Income Tax would go on in precisely the same way even if this Bill were not introduced, although here and there a growing paucity of the available commissioners might cause inconvenience. The recommendation of the Royal Commission to which he calls attention was that one-third of the General Commissioners of Income Tax should be appointed by the Crown, through the Lords Lieutenant of the counties, one-third by the Land Tax Commissioners as at present, and one-third by county or borough councils. The Codification Committee Report to which he also makes reference did not make any recommendation on the general method of appointment. Therefore it is clear that even if legislative effect had been given to the Royal Commission's recommendation a "Names Bill" would still be necessary from time to time for Income Tax purposes, since one-third of the Income Tax Commissioners would continue to be appointed from the Land Tax Commissioners. It is only a question of degree. If the recommendations had been accepted we should still have required this "Names Bill" as regards one-third.
In short, under the law as it stands, the occasional introduction of a Bill of this nature cannot be avoided. Finally, there does not seem to me any cause for apprehension in the right hon. Gentleman's mind in the fact that Members popularly elected, as all Members of Parliament are, should be entrusted with the task of scrutinising these lists and either accepting them or making what alterations they conceive to be necessary.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which continues the obsolete machinery providing for the administration of the Income Tax, and fails to adopt the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1920 or the Codification Report of 1936.
My object in moving this Amendment is really to make a two-fold protest. The

first protest is against the continuance of this very obsolete machinery. It must be perfectly clear, even from the speech of the Financial Secretary, that it is very archaic, that it rather creaks. Looking up our Debate 10 years ago, when the previous Land Tax Commissioners Bill was introduced, I find there were a good many queries on the Committee stage as to whether Members of Parliament had in fact been consulted and there seems to have been some doubt on the matter. The whole system is something in the nature of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce. First we are told that the Land Tax Commissioners have very little work to do in regard to Land Tax, that their principal work consists in forming the matrix from which the local Commissioners of Income Tax are formed, that some of them are formed from the justices of the peace and some are recommended to Members of Parliament who have an absolutely free hand to choose anybody they like inside their districts. In this House we are fond, and rightly fond, of some of our ancient customs when they are harmless and unimportant, but for what is one of the major taxes, the Income Tax, to depend upon this very archaic procedure seems a little absurd. That is one reason why I think it is time to protest against the continuance for 10 years or so of this old method of dealing with an up-to-date problem.
But I had another object in view, and in order that the right hon. Gentleman may understand exactly what it is I will recall to his attention what the late Mr. William Graham—whose death after the election of 1931 we all regret—said when this matter was introduced by the Financial Secretary of the day, I think Mr. Ronald McNeill. He said there were in this structure old-world elements which were very interesting:
but are hardly appropriate in existing conditions, and the time must come very soon when this House will require as a matter of efficiency …. to look at the administrative side."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1927; col. 267,Vol. 203.]
Though he supported giving the Measure a Second Reading, he said the House ought to be reminded of the underlying administrative reforms which were recommended by the Royal Commission on Income Tax in 1920, and had not been put into operation. It was all right for Mr. William Graham to say in 1927: "Here


are these administrative reforms which were recommended in 1920. I think you ought to have put them into effect, no doubt you are going to do so, and in the meanwhile we are prepared to renew this procedure." Ten years have elapsed since then, and I think it is necessary for us to take a somewhat stronger line.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to be quite clear about what I am urging. I am not merely concerned, as he seems to think, with the particular administrative change regarding the Land Tax Commissioners. I am concerned about the whole question of the reform of the administration of the Income Tax which was dealt with by the Royal Commission in 1920. They recommended a large number of reforms. They recommended reforms of the Board of Inland Revenue; they recommended an administrative reform with regard to the General Commissioners of Income Tax; with regard to the additional Commissioners; with regard to the Special Commissioners; the abolition of the Assessors; that the collectors should he appointed by the Board of Inland Revenue; and that the area of Income Tax districts should be divorced from those of the old Land Tax, and should be decided anew by the Board of Inland Revenue. Finally, they recommended that committees should be set up to draft a new Bill to take the place of the existing Act. So far as the last recommendation is concerned the Government did make a move in that direction, and we had what was known as the Consolidating Committee, which reported at the beginning of last year; but so far as the bulk of the administrative changes recommended by the Commission are concerned the Government have, I think, done little or nothing. I have not read meticulously through all the Finance Acts to make sure whether or not any of the recommendations have been put into effect, but I do not think it is incorrect to say that on its administrative side the law stands practically as it stood before the Commission reported, and there has been no suggestion that the Government are going to implement the recommendations of the Codification Committee.
We are prepared to allow the Government to go slowly, because we know they are engaged with matters of importance, and that the recommendations cannot be put into operation on the spur of the

moment, but we want to draw attention to a practice which is far too common with Governments—Governments of all parties—of appointing a Royal Commission or a Departmental Committee, occupying much of the time of a number of busy people, and then calmly pigeonholing the results of their labours. Unless the Financial Secretary can tell me that I am wrong in my statement, or unless he can assure me that drastic steps are to be taken to implement during the present Session the recommendations of the commission and the committee, I shall be disposed to ask my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby to make a protest, not against this Bill, but against the failure of the Government to reform the administration of the Income Tax and against the fact that they have brought in this very minute Bill at a time when a much larger Measure was really desirable.

7.30 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: If I may say a word or two on this Amendment it would be to remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is not an occasion for proposing wide and comprehensive Amendments to Income Tax law. The Bill is very limited in scope, but the statement of the right hon. Gentleman has been rather in the nature of a protest that the Bill is not something quite different. Speaking generally, I could not, within the Rules of Order and on the subject-matter of this Bill, go fully into the matters into which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to go. It would not be wise to say that any one Government could be held to blame for not taking action. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the commission's report was many years ago, since when there have been Governments of various complexions. I can assure him that we are alive to the valuable considerations in that report. Whether he was alive to them when he was Financial Secretary I do not know, but no action seems to have resulted. Beyond saying that we are bearing in mind the commission's recommendations I do not think it would be proper for me to go. I hope I have made it clear to the House that the Measure which is before them now is a necessary one in order to secure the replenishment of the lists of land tax commissioners where there are not enough to perform the necessary functions. I cannot hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now withdraw his protest, but I


feel that such a protest is a little misplaced when it takes the form of voting against a Measure for the replenishment of Land Tax Commissioners.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 97.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Dugdale.]

Ordered,
That the Members for counties do prepare lists of the christian names and surnames of Commissioners for executing the Land Tax Acts for their respective counties.

Ordered,
That Members for boroughs and places having Commissioners exercising exclusive jurisdiction within the same under the said Acts do prepare similar lists of Commissioners for executing the said Acts within such boroughs and places, respectively.

Ordered,
That Members for other boroughs and places do prepare similar lists of Commissioners foe executing the said Acts for the counties in which such last-mentioned boroughs and places are situate."—[Lieut.-Colonel Colville.]

IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).

WOOL FELT HOODS.

7.12 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I beg to move,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 8) Order, 1937, dated the eighteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved.
I feel that the House will not wish me to occupy very long over this Order and the one which follows. I can assure hon. Members in all parts of the House that nothing is contained in either of them to

which they could object. I shall explain them very briefly indeed, and if hon. Members are not satisfied I can ask leave to speak again. The first Order seeks to do something which has often been done before by this House, that is to impose a specific duty as an alternative to the ad valorem duty. The reason for making the proposal to-day is on account of an influx of Japanese competitive goods at very low prices with which the ad valorem duty does not effectively deal. If we are allowed to have the alternative specific duty of 3s. per dozen we believe it will stabilise the market here, and will bring the price of Japanese imports nearer to that of the imports from Italy which is our largest supplier of these goods.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: With the disarming politeness which the right hon. and gallant Member has learned to wield in this House he has asked us not to take too much time on these Orders. On this occasion he may be right, because the House is anxious to debate to-night a wider and more important issue; but on nearly every occasion when these Orders are submitted to vary duties from ad valorem to specific, the change is always in the direction of imposing additional burdens upon the consumer. That aspect did not seem to find prominence in the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary. The fact is that on a large and important part of the commodities covered in this Order there is already a specific duty of 15s. It does not therefore appear to be a very big or important matter to add a 3s. specific duty upon a different and lower class of goods than


those which are covered by the higher specific duty. I should say that in principle we should object to such a proposal on any occasion, but, having regard to the fact that the House has already by its vote approved of the higher specific duty of 15s., I do not think I should be justified in asking my colleagues to waste further time on it.

7.45 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I agree that this is not a departure from policy or principle, but, in spite of the disarming mariner in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman moved the Order, I think we are entitled to a little more explanation. I think the blame must be more with the Commissioners than with the Minister himself. They seem to get more casual about putting forward arguments for increasing or altering rates of duty as the years go on. I remember the time when, although they were then very busy passing new Orders, they did the House of Commons the courtesy of placing before it some of the evidence which had been put before them, and giving some details and arguments for the new duty. Now they are beginning to treat the House of Commons as a mere register of their decisions. Here we have little more than a page giving the case for the alteration, and I desire to make a protest in regard to this laxity. It cannot be argued that the Commissioners are so busy that they have not time, and I think the House of Commons, having appointed these three Commissioners, should insist that they do the House of Commons the courtesy of giving the reasons, the arguments and some of the evidence enabling them to arrive at their decision.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman did state the country from which these articles come, but the Commissioners have not even taken the trouble to mention it. We are not at the present time very enthussiastic in the House of Commons about encouraging Japan to find markets for her products, because we know that the exchange which comes from them is used largely for the purpose of getting raw materials for munitions; but I think the House of Commons should realise that there is by no means general support for this particular duty. The duty is a protection on the felt body, the wool hood, from which the hat is made. While there are some dozens of hood manufacturers, there are hundreds of manufacturers of

hats from these hoods. I am assured that in Luton alone there are 400 hat manufacturers, but, unfortunately, they are not well organised. I understand that there was a meeting of the Luton Chamber of Commerce, where it was at first agreed to oppose the application, but only a small percentage of manufacturers were present, and finally it was decided that no action should be taken. But over 100 manufacturers signed a petition against this new tax, which they considered to be a duty on their raw material.
It has been pointed out to me that in practice it will injure the actual manufacturer of hats very seriously, since it will increase the cost of his raw material, namely, the hood, and it will encourage exporters to this country to send finished hats instead of, as in the past, the hoods in their unfinished state. Therefore, the majority of hat manufacturers are likely to suffer. It has also been pointed out to me that, as the result of this duty on hoods, that is to say, on the raw material from which the manufacturer makes his hats, they have more or less lost their export trade. Luton has been told to concentrate more on the home trade, and fortunately in the last few years the home trade has been comparatively good, but I am afraid that, when the inevitable depression comes, they will then find that the markets for their hats all over the world have more or less disappeared. However, I do not want to magnify the duty; it is a comparatively little one; but I desire to lodge my protest against the way in which these Import Duties Orders are submitted to the House, and I hope that in future the Commissioners will pay us the compliment of giving us fuller reasons for any alteration of duties that they recommend.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 8) Order, 1937, dated the eighteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved.

DIATOMACEOUS EARTH.

7.51 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move,
That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 11) Order, 5937, dated the eighteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-first day


of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved.
Perhaps, on this other Order, I may be allowed to say a word in reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). It seems to me that it is not so much for the Commissioners to produce a long story for the House of Commons as for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to explain the matter. I have said that I should be willing to do that, and I believe I could do it. It was only in view of the particular circumstances of the evening and the fact that, as the hon. Baronet himself has said, this duty is a little one, that I ventured to address the House with a brevity which I hope will be generally appreciated.
This other Order refers to diatomaceous earth, and if during the last 10 days I have been asked once what that is, I have been asked 100 times. I have now been able to find out that it is a light-weight form of hydrous silica. It was placed on the free list in 1934, and it was subsequently found, as occasionally happens even under the best regulations, that the description given to it when it was placed on the free list was a little too wide and comprehensive, and has included various other kinds of diatomaceous earth which it was not originally meant to let in. The purpose of the present Order is simply to readjust the description of diatomaceous earth in accordance with the realities of the situation.

Resolved,
That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 11) Order, 1937, dated the eighteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

SPAIN (BRITISH AGENTS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Dugdale.]

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I wish to say at the outset, with regard to the matter we propose to raise, that my colleagues of the Opposition consider that the request we

have made to-day to the Prime Minister for an opportunity to discuss the Government's position with regard to the exchange of agents in Spain has been fully justified upon two main grounds at any rate—first, the importance and influence of the action which the Government now propose on the situation in Spain itself; and, secondly, the importance and influence of that action upon the world situation at large. I hope it may be possible, through the answer that we may get from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this Debate, to clear up some of the points which are in our minds as being likely to prejudice the situation in Spain and in the rest of the world, and ultimately to prejudice British interests and the position of Britain in general in the dangerous situation which is growing up in the world at large.
With regard, first, to the influence of the Government's decision on the situation in Spain, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was at pains this afternoon, in the course of his answer to the Leader of the Opposition, to stress the fact that at present about two-thirds of the territory in Spain is under the control of the Franco administration, and that there are very large and important industrial and commercial interests and trades embodied in that Franco-occupied territory. We have to have regard, not only to those commercial interests, but to the general effect of the Government's policy upon the position in Spain in the light of the pledges of the Government on non-intervention. We have had a good many Debates on this question of non-intervention in the past, and we have often described some of the actions which have been taken in that connection as having reduced the original intentions of the Government on no-intervention almost to a farce. In this particular case, we say that the decision now actually to exchange missions—because that is what it amounts to; this is not the appointment of a representative here in a particular place, or there in a particular place—this proposal to exchange missions with the Franco Government is such a long way towards the recognition of Franco, to whom, under the whole theory of the Non-Intervention Agreement, belligerent rights are being refused, that it is bound to have a very substantial and, we fear, an adverse effect upon the position of the Spanish Government within their own country


and with regard to their relationships with other Powers abroad. We say, therefore, first of all, that, so far as the Spanish situation is concerned, the attitude of the Government in this matter is not in complete accord with their expressed intentions in regard to non-intervention. I hasten to say, because I wish, of course, to be fair in any criticisms that I make, that, much as we on the Opposition side deprecate the line that the Government are taking, we are at least thankful that, in the announcement the Government have made, they have said that they wish it to be clear, as far as it can be in such circumstances, that there is no official recognition on a diplomatic basis—

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Or unofficial.

Mr. Alexander: I will leave out the adjective, and say that there is no recognition in a diplomatic sense being given to the Franco administration in Spain; but I am bound to say that, reading the foreign Press, there seems to be every indication that the importance of the decision of the British Government is appraised there, at least in one regard, as being more detrimental to the Government forces in Spain than ought to be the case on the part of the leading Government in the world committed, as it says it is, to the policy of non-intervention.
That is the first point that I make. The second is the importance and influence of the Government's action with regard to the world situation. I speak for myself on this, and no doubt I speak with what the Foreign Secretary would say is a partisan bias; but I need not apologise for that, because he himself so often speaks with a partisan bias. I say that the action of the Government in this matter is particularly unfortunate to come at this time when we have been reading of the great song which has been made about the addition of Italy to the Anti-Communist Pact, making it now a triple pact; that there will undoubtedly be widespread comment throughout the world that the British Government are now engaged, in the absence of the development of collective security in the League of Nations, in pursuing the old game of the balance of power; and that

in the light of this development in the world situation—the gradual widening of this anti-Communist Pact—they are trying to balance the position as far as possible by moving a little more than they have yet moved, in the direction of support of what is regarded as an anti-Communist revolution in some quarters.
I think I have made it clear why the Opposition regard it as having been important to raise this matter to-night, and to get a more detailed statement from the Government on the matter, and to have an opportunity of getting specific answers from them on specific questions. With regard to the general situation to which I referred, I regard it as particularly unfortunate that, in the light of what has happened in the past week, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who opened a Debate on foreign affairs on the 1st November—only last Monday—by saying that he hoped to be brutally frank, when he must have known—in fact, I am certain he knew—all that was going on in regard to the negotiations to arrange this fundamental change, did not deign to offer the House of Commons a single word on the matter, or to give any idea to any of us who were engaged in the Debate on the important Opposition Amendment in the Debate on the Address. I hardly call that being brutally frank. I should have expected that we might have been treated differently from that.
The first question I put to the Foreign Secretary is this: When was the understanding arrived at with the Franco forces? What was the date? I do not want the Foreign Secretary to think for a moment that we have not suspected the Government of wanting to arrive at some arrangement. The "New York Times" gave us some light on the subject some months ago. On 29th August the "New York Times" said:
Important British mining and business interests in the Bilbao vicinity are said to have supported urgently General Franco's argument that, in return for British consular representation in the Basque country, Nationalist Spaniards travelling to, or doing business with, Britain should have official diplomatic and consular representation in London. Moreover Salamanca believes that the British Government under Neville Chamberlain is more sympathetic towards General Franco than it was under Stanley Baldwin.
I must say that the way in which events have been moving seem to indicate


that the "New York Times" in its warning to us was not off the map. What was the date on which this understanding with General Franco was agreed on? I cannot believe that we should have got an announcement of the detailed character that was hinted at by the Prime Minister last Thursday and given in greater detail to-day by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if the undertaking had not already been agreed on. When one considers the answers given this afternoon it seems to me there are special reasons for saying that. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his answer said:
Before giving final approval to this proposal, His Majesty's Government have insisted upon a satisfactory settlement of two points in regard to which no progress had so far been made. I refer to the seven ships until lately detained at Ferrol or elsewhere and to two cargoes of British-owned iron ore which, during the summer, were confiscated. Satisfaction has been obtained. Orders have been given for the release of all these ships and, as the House was informed last week, some have already left Spain. Orders have also been given for an equivalent amount of iron ore to be placed at the disposal of Majesty's Embassy at Hendaye.
The significant statement that I would direct attention to there is that they have insisted upon a satisfactory settlement of two points in regard to which no progress has so far been made. We understand that an agreement has now been made in regard to the exchange of agentsandthat Franco has agreed to the release of the seven ships and the granting of the equivalent quantity of iron ore to that which was confiscated, provided that he gets his agents appointed to represent him in London, as well as his receiving additional British agents in Spain.
I shall be told, even by the Foreign Secretary, that to General Franco the appointment of Franco's agents in London is much more important in this agreement than the actual appointment of British agents in Spain, and that a real bargaining counter has been the appointment of these agents to operate in London in order that the Secretary of State may get, what? He might get satisfaction to a point—the seizure of seven British ships and two cargoes of iron ore on which this country ought to have got satisfaction long ago, if they had made the position perfectly plain all the way through as to what was the attitude of the Government on these questions. Instead of that, I think it is

true to say that, in regard to Spain as in regard to almost every other sphere of foreign affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) was right last Monday when he said that the Government had been guilty of one long series of diplomatic retreats. On this matter, in order finally to obtain the release of seven British ships and two cargoes of iron ore, the right hon. Gentleman has to concede this further development in the recognition—he does not like the word, then, "towards" the recognition of the Franco Government, that would not otherwise have been conceded. On that hypothesis what does it mean? It means, apparently, that you get agreement so far, but General Franco has only to seize a few more shipsandhold them up, and then General Franco will get his British Ambassador. That is the only logical argument which follows upon the trend of events as we see them on this side to-night as the result of the Government's announcement.
I also notice that, in the course of the answer, the Secretary of State makes reference to the important British business interests to be protected in this part of Spain. No one on this side of the House, I am quite certain, wants to injure unduly British interests in trade or commerce abroad at any time, but when one finds in the Secretary of State's answer a special reference to South Wales coal it seems to have been put in for a special purpose and that you have a special sort of plea. Having regard to the views expressed by the workers in South Wales, at any rate with regard to Spain, I should say that, as far as there is any real advantage to be obtained from this agreement for South Wales coal, you would have difficulty in finding a South Wales miner who would sacrifice an Asturian miner for an advantage of that kind. When one looks at the rest of the trade and business interests which are referred to, one can see that there was no great advantage to be gained by superimposing upon the consular system in the Franco territory the appointment of specific and special consular agents.
I, for the life of me, have not yet been able to understand the subtle distinctions which were drawn in the course of the Foreign Secretary's reply this afternoon between the means he proposes in regard to these special British agents and what


would have happened if, in fact, he had extended the consular service. I should be very glad to hear the explanation, because, as far as I can gather from the answer, the situation is that in the Franco occupied territory you have a regular number of career consuls. It was said by the Secretary of State that they had been practically confined to the ports and that they would have been unable to get quite the effective contacts with the Franco authorities, considering the defence of British interests, because of the distance of those ports from Burgos or Salamanca, and the only other way to do it was by having a commercial secretary of the British Embassy making special journeys. Nevertheless, it is proposed, in the course of the appointment of these British agents, about whom I will say a word or two in a moment, that they shall perform all the ordinary consular duties.
The Secretary of State, for some reason or other, seemed to think that they were given a special mission to one of the assistant career consuls to change his place of abode from a Mediterranean or Atlantic port and go and reside for the time being at Burgos or Salamanca if thereby he would have ample recognition. I should have thought that that would have been just the reverse, and that it would have been much more ample recognition by sending to Spain a new and separate consul on a national basis instead of on a district basis. I have certainly been away from the Board of Trade for a long time—it is some 13 years ago since I had anything to do with the official side of it—but I should think, from what I knew then of the Board of Trade's side of consular practice, that there would be no difficulty at all, in either insurgent or Government area, in the Overseas Trade Department saying to one of its consular servants, "In present circumstances, mark that the work that you will be required to do in your particular trade can best be done from town X instead of from town Y, in which you are residing at the present moment." If they were already performing their consular service within occupied territory Y there would not be the slightest difficulty in transferring to town X to continue their actual consular duties.
Therefore, we need a great deal more explanation than we have had from the

Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to why it is considered necessary, on the trade and commercial side, to have a new and special appointment of British agents. I can only repeat that that has very little to do really with the specific defence of British trade in the Franco territory. It has something to do with it, but very little. The real point is that, if you had merely transferred from one town to another in the Franco territory an existing British consul, there would not have been the claim for General Franco to have had an exchange of missions and send his agents to London, and it is really on the basis of giving official recognition, of a kind not diplomatic, to some person like the Duke of Berwick and Alba, to have specific offices in London,andto have direct exchanges in London with the Overseas Trade Department and the Foreign Office, that this deal has been made. It is on this basis that we say that the move of the Government is distinctly in contravention of the spirit, which they have always spoken so much about, of the Non-Intervention Agreement, and is throwing the weight to-day on the side of the Franco insurgents.
There is another point—I do not want to keep the House too long—in regard to the general situation created, upon which I would like to say a word. I referred to the importance of the Government's decision on the world situation. I have indicated the way in which the League situation has been allowed to deteriorate for six years. We see a regular scramble among the Powers to see who is going to be in the right place in the struggle for the balance of power. We seem to have got right away from real support of the principle of collective security. As one sees the Government's move, one can appreciate that this is in their mind, and that Powers abroad appreciate what they are trying to do. Take, for example, the comments made, after the Foreign Secretary's speech last Monday, in the paper in Paris speaking for the Left, the "Populaire." It was speaking, I think, with a good deal of the semi-official authority of a party paper representing the party in office. In referring, on 3rd November, to the Foreign Secretary's speech, it said:
The thesis of the British Government, in short, is that Italy and Germany will be compelled to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for England. We are not surprised that


Mr. Eden hopes that this will be the case. What surprises us is that he believes it will be the case.
Later on, they go on to point out that the British Government, in their move this week, seem to think that, by placating, to some extent, General Franco, they will not be departing from their original declaration that they are interested in the territorial integrity of Spain, and that if Franco is successful, as the Government seem to think he will be, if only they play up to him now they will be able, when the civil war is over, still to be entirely friendly with him, and that the fundamental principle of British policy for centuries now—that it is important for us to conserve in Spain a Government which will not interfere with our Empire communications—will not he interfered with. Of course, the Powers abroad see through that. The "Populaire" sees through that, and speaks of the surprising optimism of the British Government. Anyone can see that, of course, Mussolini has intervened in Spain, that, of course, he wants Franco to win, and that, of course, he has supplied men and materials. Hitler wants Franco to win, and, of course, he has made no secret of the fact that he has supplied materials and men. They want him to win, they have spared no effort to assist him, and they will continue doing so until he has won. To suggest that this sort of action now, in the middle of this, is going thereby to remove the danger that has grown up and will make for the security of our Empire communications and general Empire interests, seems fatuous.
It would have been better for the Government to have insisted that the position of the League ought to have been to allow the Spanish Government its proper rights as an elected Government, and for the Government never to have taken part in the business that has been going on for the last 12 months, and not for them now to be cringing at the feet of Franco. The Secretary of State smiles at that, but, in his answer this afternoon, he said, "We have insisted on a satisfactory settlement of two points in regard to which no progress has been made," and he goes on to say that they have got the release of seven British ships and two cargoes of iron ore as a condition for the granting of this type of mission. I am sorry to have to say it, but I believe that this action of the

Government, although it has not gone so far as the granting of complete recognition to Franco—

Mr. Eden: No recognition whatever.

Mr. Alexander: I said it has not gone so far.

Mr. Eden: It does not constitute recognition, official or unofficial.

Mr. Alexander: I am not at all surprised that the Secretary of State is so anxious to get up and put that point again, because world opinion certainly thinks that these missions are, at any rate, a move in the direction of support for General Franco, and that they certainly do not constitute a completely neutral attitude.
I come to another point of importance. In the working of the Non-Intervention Agreement we have always been told that, of course, it was the essence of the whole business that we must work in complete agreement with our neighbour France. Some of us who have views to the Left—I will speak for myself, at any rate—were considerably perturbed last year at what was often quoted as French opinion, but the whole French nation, whether of the Left, Centre or Right, recognises that in the present divisions of Europe the only basis on which they can formulate their foreign policy is one of complete co-operation with this country. Whenever criticism is made of the attitude of France in regard to the beginnings of the Non-Intervention Agreement, I can never hide from myself that the French people, whether of the Centre, Left or Right, were over-impressed by the fact that unless they could look to Britain they could look to no one. Although it has been said from that Box that it was from France that the real initiative for the Non-Intervention Agreement came, I cannot separate that from the real psychology of the situation.
The Foreign Secretary says: "We have informed the French Government." He goes on quite clearly to indicate that there was no consultation. He went on, in a way which I thought rather strange, to say that he would never have expected France to consult us on a similar matter. That is a curious assessment of the Non-Intervention Agreement. I should have thought that on any matter relating to this difficult situation in which the French and British attitude combined was the essence of non-intervention, there


never would be a move by either side, by France or Britain, without actual consultation, and not merely a decision to inform one Power that a certain decision had been taken?

Mr. Eden: What is the difference?

Mr. Alexander: There is a vast difference between informing another Government that you have had negotiations and now propose to complete the agreement, and consulting that Government with a view to obtaining their opinion as to what the effect of certain action would be upon the joint action of the two Powers in relation to the country with whom you are negotiating. We are entitled to ask for a further answer upon that point.
My last point is in regard to the character of the mission which it is proposed to appoint. There appeared in the Press some days ago what seemed to be a fairly authentic account of the situation, taken as a whole, and certainly the answers of the Prime Minister last Thursday and of the Foreign Secretary to-day indicate that that story in the Press last week has largely been borne out. In the newspaper forecast it was stated that the agent to be appointed would be a person of former Ambassador status, Sir Robert Hodgson, who was to have as his assistant the Assistant Secretary of the Embassy at Hendaye. We were unable to get a complete answer to that question last Thursday. When the Prime Minister was questioned about it be said that he did not know that any appointment had been made, and even if such appointment were made it would make no difference to the position. To-day the Foreign Secretary says that up to the present no appointment has been made.
We are entitled to more information, because it is understood up to the present that there is to be an exchange of missions. We are to get not an ordinary Spanish Consul here but a central mission to perform Consular work on a national basis in London, and we are to get a central mission to perform Consular work and to act in defence of British interests in Franco territory, on a national basis. We are entitled to ask what is to be the status of the persons to be appointed from this country. Is Sir Robert Hodgson to be appointed? Is the Assistant Secretary at the British Embassy at

Hendaye to be appointed? If so, I think it lends a great deal of colour to the case we have submitted and to the character of the move towards recognition. I do not know whether Sir Robert Hodgson is at present in any Ministerial position, but we know he has been a Minister of importance abroad, and he is available now, so far as I know, for a Ministerial appointment of that kind. If he is to be appointed, or a person of similar status is to be appointed, it would lend very great colour to the case we are now submitting.
In his answer the Foreign Secretary will no doubt try to give us the further information for which we have asked, but it would be wrong to conclude without saying that those of us who hold the views that we hold on this side of the House with regard to the situation in Spain and with regard to the effect of the whole of the Spanish incidents upon the general basis of international relationships and ultimate peace, feel that the Government have once more blundered into a sort of fixed-up arrangement. Where they are unable to obtain satisfaction for real injustices done to British subjects, the seizure of ships and cargoes, and sc on, they now kow tow to General Franco and get this special mission agreement. instead of helping the interests of this country and helping to build a basis of real peace for the future, they are setting back the clock of progress once more. Finally, they will have drifted to a situation where they have tried to make their peace with Franco, but they will not have the goods delivered in the way that they wish to have them delivered, because they will have been stolen from the source by Hitler and Mussolini.

8.31 p.m.

Sir Francis Acland: Before I come to the interrogatories, which is the correct term for our procedure to-night, I want to make one comment on the speech to which we have just listened. If my memory be correct in regard to the rather prehistoric time when I was attached to the Foreign Office, I seem to remember that there were some questions on which you informed friendly Governments as to what you were going to do. If they said, "We agree," it might have seemed a little bit patronising, while if they said, "We disagree," it might seem a little bit unfriendly. This may be one of those


questions. I believe that France has several consuls de carrière in Spain, and we have only one. If we tell France that we are going to supplement that one by appointing not fresh career consuls, because that would be something in the nature of recognition, but that we are appointing totally different people, it does not seem to me at first sight that the French Government are called upon either to disagree or agree. [Interruption.] If by telling the truth I am offending hon. Members above the Gangway, I am very sorry.
Now I come to my questions, which are few in number, and I think they are clear. I will leave my notes for the Foreign Secretary as an aide memoire if he so desires. The first question is a matter of fact. Is there any precedent for this action? If so, what is it? If there is no precedent, then we must make our own precedent. From my point of view if we make our own precedent it is no worse for that, provided the precedent we make is not a bad one. If we do make a precedent it is for us to judge whether it is a good or a bad one. My second question—I should like specific answers, because on the answers will depend the attitude of my party—is this: If we accord official but not diplomatic or even consular status to the representatives of General Franco, will His Majesty's Government be in the least affected in their attitude on the question of recognising his Government or even his status as a belligerent? Will the presence of our representatives in General Franco's territory give him the means of exercising pressure on His Majesty's Government? That divides itself into two. Will it be expressly indicated to our agents that if they meddle in political matters at all they will at once be recalled?

Mr. Eden: Do you mean our agents there?

Sir F. Acland: Yes; I am asking about the people we are to send there. Not only are they not expected, but if they do concern themselves in political as distinct from trade matters then certain consequences will follow? I understand they are to be sent there as trade representatives. Are they sent there as trade representatives or as political negotiators? If they are going to negotiate on political matters, we should like to know it. Secondly, will it be clearly indicated to

General Franco—so far as these things can be done—[Interruption]. I am only going to make a very short speech, a quarter of the length of the one which preceded it, and I think I am asking perfectly fair questions. Will it be clearly indicated so far as these things can properly be done to General Franco, that if he even ventures to hint "You recognise me or I turn out your agents," we shall welcome their being turned out? The country will at least draw its own conclusions.
Then, arising out of this—it is important and I will put it more specifically—will the representatives we are sending out be of the Brown, Smith and Robinson type—the House will see what I mean—men who are expert in things like securing delivery, collection of debts, and similar matters, ordinary commercial matters, which only career consuls can be expected adequately to do, or will they be people who, when we scrutinise their names, we shall find are people with a political past which will make them suspect to ordinary opinion? I say "to ordinary opinion." I am not saying whether they would be suspect to myself or to hon. Members above the Gangway, but which would make them suspect to people who are able to judge between a person who is really sent for something which looks like a political object or merely to help in matters of trade, in which consuls, whatever their experience, are not trained, and cannot be expected to do. That is a fair question. If when the Foreign Secretary replies he can completely satisfy us on these questions—I think they go rather deep—we shall act accordingly, but that does not mean that when we get a chance of raising the question, which the Foreign Secretary never comes within miles of answering, where is all this non-intervention leading us, we shall not press it as best we can in the hope of getting some answer from the Foreign Secretary. Hope always rises fresh in the human breast.
I do not raise that question to-night, because I am not going to give the Foreign Secretary the chance of hitting a full pitch to the leg boundary in the way he delights to do whenever he gets the chance. If we can in the light of the Foreign Secretary's answers approve this new move, we shall not only hope—we are sick of hoping—we shall not only


expect—we are tired of expecting—but we shall do our best to see that it will lead to outstanding claims against General Franco's government being dealt with more quickly and more satisfactorily than has been the case in the past. We shall watch what happens with our eyes on that. These matters are not only important in themselves but very important as precedents which may concern the whole body of British commerce in the future. Although this has never occurred before, it may occur again, and the precedents established now will be relied on in the future.
If the Government find—and I am not surprised that they do—that there is an attitude of distrust and suspicion on the whole of this side of the House, they have only themselves to blame for it. This will undoubtedly be claimed in certain quarters to-morrow as a fresh surrender to Mussolini. I do not wonder at it. I put it quite bluntly, I think we have grovelled so long that anything we do will only be the signal for fresh pressure to keep on grovelling. There will always be an adequate departmental reply as to why each particular act on our part is perfectly justifiable, but if the Government would sometimes look not at the trees but at the wood, they would, I think, see that the wood is constantly getting darker and darker as far as the honour of this country and the interests of the Empire are concerned. That is inevitable, and for it the Government are wholly to blame. In spite of all this, if we are satisfied by the answers we get to the questions I have put, not I hope unpolitely or unfairly, that the matter is being arranged solely that we may be better able to carry on our legitimate trade with Spain and collect all that Spain owes us, we shall not oppose the Government.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Crossley: The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate used a phrase to which, I think, everybody on this side of the House took the very strongest exception. He said that the Foreign Secretary was "cringing at the feet of General Franco," and the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) has used the word "grovelling." I do not think that the Government have ever as yet grovelled at the feet of any-

body. In Spain throughout their policy has been entirely consistent, and I hope that they will not now start to grovel at the feet of the Opposition. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) said that this proposal was a fundamental change in British policy. It is quite clear to what he intended to draw the attention of the House. He used the phrase "official recognition," then had to withdraw the adjective, and later on withdraw the noun, and come to the phrase "towards recognition." Of course, in point of fact, it has nothing to do with recognition; it is simply, and solely and absolutely consistent with the policy of non-intervention which the Government have followed. Non-intervention is a form of neutrality—a new form of neutrality it may be—

Mr. Thurtle: And a very queer form, too.

Mr. Crossley: —from which both sides may have suffered some disadvantage; but this is a step that cannot be said to be inconsistent with non-intervention. Its result will be that there will be on one side in Spain a representative who calls himself an agent, without that term in any way implying the recognition of the party administering that side of Spain; and on the other side, there will be diplomatic representation, and our Ambassador himself will be at Hendaye. I cannot conceive a stricter form of neutrality, of which non-intervention itself is a form.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall asked whether there were any precedents. It was on two or three precedents that I rose to speak for a few minutes. There is any number of very interesting precedents on this occasion. First of all, there was the case in which the United States, in 1810 sent agents to Buenos Ayres to the South American Republics that were in revolt. In 1823 we sent consuls to the Spanish Republics that were in revolt, although we did not recognise their independence until 1825. In 1849, too, the United States sent a consul to the Hungarians, who were revolting against Austria, for the express purpose of keeping in contact with the rebels.

Mr. Alexander: The revolution was over before Mr. Mann arrived there.

Mr. Crossley: In any case, his letters of credence instructed him to keep in contact with the rebels. But there are three precedents that I particularly wish to mention. The first is the Trent case, in 1861, when two agents of the Southern States of America, coming over to this country, were forcibly seized from a British ship by a United States cruiser, a case on which our Foreign Secretary at the time, Lord Russell, wrote a dispatch giving certain opinions. Incidentally, no recogntion, either de jure or de facto, had been given at that time by this country to the administration of the Southern States of America.

Mr. Alexander: They had been afforded belligerent rights.

Mr. Crossley: Yes. Lord Russell maintained that neutral States might receive from unrecognised Governments special agents enjoying no representative character and no diplomatic honours, but otherwise entitled to the immunity of Ministers. He went on to add, in his own words:
The reception of these gentlemen upon this footing could not have been adjudged according to the law of nations as a hostile or unfriendly act towards the United States.
I believe those words have a considerable bearing upon the present case.

Mr. Alexander: Is not the whole point the fact that the British Government at the time had the right to defend their ships, which were carrying those men, because they had granted to the rebels belligerent rights, and that it was an unfriendly act by the United States Government to take off British ships representatives of people to whom the British Government had given belligerent rights?

Mr. Crossley: I do not think that is the whole point. There is a considerable point in the fact that our Foreign Secretary at the time laid it down that it could not be regarded as an unfriendly act for this country to receive the agents of an administration which had not been granted either de jure or de facto recognition. The next case to which I wish to refer may interest the Opposition even more. In 1920, M. Krassin came to this country as the agent of the Soviet Government, which at that time had not been recognised by our country either as the de jure or de facto Government of

Russia. M. Krassin came to this country and was accorded special diplomatic immunities, and even certain immunities from the jurisdiction of the English courts, for certain specific negotiations. There may be a slight difference, but again I believe that the case of M. Krassin, in 1920, has a considerable bearing upon the case that we are now discussing. The third case that I wish to quote is one which is not by any means a complete precedent, but it sheds considerable light on the matter. It was the appointment by this country of Sir Robert Hodgson as an agent to Soviet Russia in 1921, when we did not recognise the Soviet Union as the de jure Government.

Mr. Gallacher: It has no bearing on the present situation.

Mr. Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman expound how lie makes the analogy? I cannot see an analogy between the Russian position and the Spanish position. There was no non-intervention in the case of Russia. This country had intervened very considerably in Russia.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Surely, in so far as that specific analogy is correct, it is most damaging to the Government's case, because the Russian Government then being firmly in the saddle, the exchange of agents was made with the object of preparing the way for recognition of the Soviet Government.

Mr. Crossley: It did not lead entirely to that result. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the history of that matter, he will come to 1923, when our Foreign Secretary, angry at the way our agent was being treated by the Russian Government, gave what was tantamount to an ultimatum to that Government that if they did not redress certain grievances within 10 days, our agent would be withdrawn and all diplomatic relations with the Russian Government severed.

Sir A. Sinclair: Then they were diplomatic relations.

Mr. Crossley: They were commercial relations, and so on. Actually Lord Curzon threatened the Russian Government that the British Government would terminate the Trade Treaty of 1921, as the right hon. Gentleman may remember. I think I have answered the point he made. I think the first two precedents which I have quoted almost exactly


cover the situation we are now discussing, and the third precedent sheds some further light on it. If I may make one further point, I will quote the words of Grotius, written over 300 years ago, which have some bearing on the situation in which the Government find themselves to-day. Grotius wrote;
Una gens pro tempore quasi duae gentis habetur,"
which means:
One nation for the time being should be treated as if it has two peoples.
He expressly applied those words to a civil war when that civil war had gone on for a considerable period of time. Indeed, it was on the basis of that quotation that certain foreign countries treated this country when the civil war of Cromwell's time was being waged.
Owing to interruptions I have spoken much longer than I had intended, but I should like to add that this is a matter of the merest common sense. At the moment negotiations on any outstanding question have to be carried on painfully by a secretary from the British Embassy at Hendaye. That Embassy is a most uncomfortable building with an Ambassador's room which is rather smaller than the area of that Table. From the Embassy at Hendaye our representative has to travel 300 miles to Salamanca along Spanish roads which are good, driven by Spanish chauffeurs who are recklessly dangerous and in Salamanca, in a crowded hotel, he has to conduct, it may be, very important negotiations upon specific points, possibly involving the interests of British shipping, or the interests of British trade, or the interests, as frequently occurs, of British nationals. His negotiating abilities must be impaired both by the circumstances and by the fact that he is not a resident. It is true that if he resides in Salamanca he will be subject to the inconvenience caused by the fact that bombs are from time to time dropped on Salamanca, which is not very agreeable.

Commander Bower: Surely the Spanish Government never drop bombs?

Mr. Crossley: It is a de facto consideration that we should have at the seat of the Government of two-thirds of Spain an active representative who can conduct negotiations on behalf of any of the interests which this country is bound to

have in such a large area of one of the largest countries of Europe. On that basis, I consider that the Government are amply justified in the action which they are taking. If I may utter one word of criticism of the Government I would say that I cannot understand why they did not, a considerable time ago, take this rather obvious action on which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has put all kinds of interpretations which cannot be justified.

8.58 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I think the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat had his points fully dealt with by way of commentary and interrogation in the course of his speech, and I do not propose to take that matter further. The question which we on this side of the House are asking ourselves is: What lies behind the step which the Government have taken? I do not feel that I shall be doing the Government any great injustice if I say that representations from the City and from great business interests, have played their part in causing the Government to take this step. I say "representations" but I doubt if I should be going too far if I said "pressure"—pressure from business interests and pressure from the Federation of British Industries which, true to its initials, always seems to act in what it considers to be Franco's best interests. The case of the South Wales coal trade has been quoted, and I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary whether representations have been received from the miners or from the coalowners.
I regard the step which the Government have decided upon as a clear indication that that section in the Cabinet which has been backing Franco has won. I think there have been three sections in the British Cabinet on this question. First, there has been a section which, if not out-and-out pro-Government, have, at any rate been rather feebly and ineffectively in favour of a more or less square deal for the Spanish Government. Secondly, there has been a section which characteristically has hoped that the war in Spain would end in a stalemate. There has been a third section which all along has hoped for a Franco victory and that section has now "got away with it," with all the humiliation for this country which that result involves. We are now


witnessing the process which we used to use to call at school "sucking up to the winner."
There used to be a golden age when this House could listen to our Foreign Secretary announcing diplomatic victories for this country. Now we only hear him announcing diplomatic victories won by other countries at our expense. The right hon. Gentleman is the head apologist for the Non-Intervention Committee in this House. I often think that the right place for the Non-Intervention Committee to meet would be in the Maze at Hampton Court. Their proceedings remind me of the old definition of a philosopher as "a blind man in a dark room, hunting for a black cat which is not there." The other day the Foreign Secretary told us that he was going to speak "with appalling frankness" and he then let out a few very innocent remarks indeed. If that is the measure of the right hon. Gentleman's "appalling frankness," it conveys the impression to my mind that he usually treats us with a considerable lack of candour.
To come to the question of the consideration which has been given by General Franco in return for the decision to appoint agents, I do not think we have had all the considerations mentioned. General Franco understands one section of the British character very well indeed, because I see he has given permission to the Calpe foxhounds to hunt in Spanish territory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Exactly—because he knows that that confirms the impression which already prevails in a certain section of the House, that General Franco is what they call "a good fellow." The Foreign Secretary denies that this is recognition; he will not allow us to use the word "recognition" and says that the decision involves no recognition at all. We know that there are people whose modesty leads them to drape the legs of their pianos and this pretence of non-recognition is very much in that spirit.
The previous speaker quoted certain precedents. I recognise those precedents. There is the precedent of the Trent case, but may I remind the hon. Member that Lord Russell laid it down that the agents in that case should enjoy no diplomatic honours and should have no representative character, but, he said, they should

enjoy the "immunities of Ministers." If that precedent is to be followed, will the Foreign Secretary tell us exactly what is covered by the term "immunities"? Will those immunities cover propaganda in this country on the part of the agents whom General Franco may appoint?

Mr. Crossley: Then the hon. and gallant Member does recognise the propriety of my precedent?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: By no means. I am merely amplifying the statement which the hon. Member made in regard to the precedents in that case.
But if we have to face the fact that the Government have decided to take this step and the step will be taken, I feel that there are some other steps which should be taken at the same time. This decision to receive the agents of General Franco should be accompanied by a most unambiguous declaration that there is no recognition of him in any way as being the head of a Government in Spain. Further, our Ambassador to the legally constituted Spanish Government should now leave Hendaye and take up his post at the seat of the Spanish Government. In my opinion he should never have left the seat of the Spanish Government. I think, to begin with, that the head of a Mission should remain at his post when that post becomes a post of difficulty and danger, and in addition to that I also think that it has been a gross affront to the Government of Spain that the British Ambassador to Spain should not be in residence at the seat of the Spanish Government.
The step should be accompanied by a decision to accord to the Spanish Government her rights in international law. Whenever we put up a plea from this side of the House for granting to the Spanish Government its rights in international law, hon. Members opposite always say that that would mean war. We are not asking the Government to intervene in the Spanish conflict, but we do ask the Government to grant the Spanish Government those rights in international law which she should enjoy. May I ask the Foreign Secretary: have we really reached this point in international affairs, that to accord rights to a Government which international law accords that Government means war? If that is the case, that to apply international law means war, may


I ask why the Government lecture Japan on the subject of international law? Those lectures will probably carry more weight if we in this country show ourselves at the same time determined to uphold international law in our treatment of the lawful Government of Spain.
As to the denial that this is recognition, if it is not recognition, what is it? At any rate, it is the first step on the slippery slope of recognition. First of all, our Ambassador to Spain has really been the de facto Ambassador to General Franco ever since he left Madrid. Now we have the appointment of agents. I expect that next time it will be belligerent rights, and after that full diplomatic recognition. If this was in itself such a necessary step, dictated by the circumstances of the situation in Spain, may I ask why these conditions about our ships were thrown in as a sort of make-weight? I think it is undignified. If this is a step which ought to be taken because it is right in itself to take it, we ought not to accompany it with these bargains about our ships, which makes it look as if the willingness to appoint these agents has been granted in return for certain concessions made to this country.
Apart from those considerations, I feel that what has been done has been most improper as regards the Government of France. A step of first importance has been taken without any consultation with the French Government, who are merely told to accept the decision and, if they do not like it, to lump it. Our policy in regard to the Spanish struggle has always had the effect of weakening the hand of France. There was the occasion when the reply to the Note sent by this country and France to Italy was received. That Note was received in Paris on Saturday, and the French Foreign Minister gave an interview to the Press, in which he foreshadowed very drastic action indeed on account of the unsatisfactory nature of that Note. He said that the French and the British Governments were in full accord, that the French Cabinet was fully agreed within itself, and, what is more, that the American Government and the British Government were quite in accord; and he said at the end of that interview that the time had now come for action and not for words. What happened between the granting of that interview by

the French Foreign Minister on Saturday and the following Monday: when all those brave words disappearedandthere were no deeds at all, but once again only words? Undoubtedly once again our Government had intervened to weaken the hand of France in regard to the Spanish negotiations.

Mr. Eden: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, but there is not a word of truth in that statement.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I can only say that, although I have not got the interview with me at the present moment—

Mr. Eden: The interview is true, but there is not a word of truth in the statement that we intervened to modify the attitude of the French Government.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Of course, I accept that, fully and freely, but it would be very interesting if the Foreign Secretary would tell us what he imagines did occur in order to cause that weakening in the French attitude between Saturday and Monday. It is absurd to say that in this matter we are working hand in hand with the French Government when a step of such importance as this is taken without any such consultation. We see the Governments of Germany and Italy working in the closest accord in regard to Spain with very good results for themselves, and can anyone imagine that a step of this importance would have been taken by either the German or the Italian Government without full consultation with the other party to that agreement? The French certainly do not like this step which our Government have taken. It has already been so stated in the French Press, and in the next few days we shall see very clearly that the foreign Press regard this step as a victory for General Franco and as a sure sign that the British Government have made up their mind that General Franco is going to win.
There is one point in regard to these concessions about shipping to which I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. I feel that we have got to be very careful that acts against our merchant shipping, admittedly only few in number, in Spanish waters do not form a precedent which might affect acts against a far larger volume of British shipping in other waters, notably in the Far East.


Our aim has always been to try to narrow down the rights of belligerents against neutrals. We have denied to belligerents the right to stop neutral ships unless an effective blockade could be enforced, but General Franco, whose status in international law is only that of a pirate, has been allowed to commit against British shipping acts which would be illegal even if committed by someone enjoying belligerent rights. That is the exact point in regard to these acts against British shipping, and I feel that two points should be made clear beyond any possibility of doubt. The first is that the exchange of these agents and the measure of recognition which is involved in the exchange does not carry with it any con-donation of the illegal acts which have been committed against our shipping; and, secondly, that the satisfaction which we were told this afternoon has been granted by General Franco in regard to the "Jean Weems" should be given in regard to all other ships and claims, for I understand that there are claims amounting to £61,000 from one firm alone in regard to damage done to certain ships. I see no reason why they should not be taken into account as well as the case of the "Jean Weems."
This decision to exchange agents shows once again that this Government will put up no fight for international law. They will put up no fight for the rights of our merchant shipping. It is a Government which even says that to watch women and children drown is sound policy. I really wonder that hon. Members on the other side do not cheer that statement. I remember hearing them cheer the announcement that a British ship had been captured by General Franco. It is a Government of one class of this country which shows itself unwilling to defend a single British interest. Reflecting upon the peril in which they have brought us, the damage to our security which has been done by them, their refusal over and over again to stand up for the rights of this country and for our nationals, I can only say that, as has happened several times before in our history, salvation will have to come not from those who regard themselves as the governing class but from the people.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: I wish that I could make relevant all my own undelivered

speeches on foreign affairs with the same skill as the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher). This Debate moves across a limited and narrow ground. It might, I suppose, be in order, but it would not be relevant, for us to consider the multitude of evil consequences disastrous to ourselves which would flow from a victory by General Franco. It is, however, true that at the beginning of this Debate the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) managed to cover large areas of the globe, and so, just now, did the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton. I expected, when this Debate was started, a tremendous denunciation from the right hon. Member for Hillsborough. He is a master of invective on normal occasions, but to-night all that has happened is that the Government have been almost damned with faint praise. Whatever may happen in an obscure and dark future, this much tonight is certain, that we are to-day not in a condition of hostilities with General Franco.
I would submit to the House and to the Opposition in particular that you can no more commercially ignore two-thirds of the Iberian Peninsula than you can rule out for purposes of trade the whole of Germany, the whole of Italy, the whole of Japan, or, indeed, the whole of Russia. What exactly do the Opposition want? All I imagine they will get to-night is a verbal repetition of the statement which we had at the end of Questions to-day. If that is the desire of His Majesty's Opposition they must indeed be fond of tautology. At the end of Questions to-day the House was given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary a clear, candid and informing statement. I can only wish that my own questions always elicited the same full information from His Majesty's Government. My right hon. Friend was able to show the vast majority of the House that, in fact, no other course was open to His Majesty's Government on this limited aspect of policy. I have no desire to be particularly offensive, but frankly I am amazed at the tactics of His Majesty's Opposition. I think they are clumsy; I think they are gratuitous; and I think they are maladroit.
Can they not find some point at which His Majesty's Government are really vulnerable? No evidence has been suggested or advanced of any dark design


on the part of His Majesty's Government. All we have heard to-night, where the speeches of the Opposition have been relevant, have been baseless speculations about something which is probably not going to happen. His Majesty's Government on this limited matter of policy have even protected our line of action for this or any future Government if, as I personally hope, the rebel cause collapses over those two-thirds of the Iberian Peninsula, where it now predominates and, in my opinion—a back-bencher can say these things with frankness—predominates to our grave Imperial danger.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I await with interest to hear the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary to see whether, in fact, we shall be subject to the tautology with which we are threatened by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I feel that that is probably all we are likely to get, but surely we are entitled to expect something more. Surely we are entitled to have from the Foreign Secretary a statement why at this time, after some 18 months of the Spanish situation, this new step has been taken. It may be true, but if the right hon. Gentleman says that we have no further purpose in our minds than merely to preserve the minor trade interests of British enterprise in Spain, we shall have to accept it because the only alternative is to say that we believe the Foreign Secretary is saying that which is not. We have no proof except that there has been some talk about precedents; but the fact about the whole development of the Spanish situation is that the thing which the Opposition only suspected on a particular day has happened a fortnight or a month later. Therefore, we have nothing but suspicion to say that in our view this is but a first step to full recognition.
I see one bright spot in the situation. The Government have shown themselves so constantly able to back the wrong horse that now, when they are beginning to back Franco, it seems to me an indication that he will probably lose. I do not want to go into the wider question; I want to stick strictly to the point before us tonight. I gather from the Foreign Secretary that this is a new service that he is creating, and I want to know whether there will be a Supplementary Estimate

brought before the House for this new kind of British civil servant. Whether it is or whether it is not, I want to know at what he estimates the cost of this new service. I want to ask him how many he proposes to have on this new job in Spain. I want to ask him what kind of staff they are to get. I want to ask if there are going to be residences, and, if so, in what places.
Above all, may I say that I have visited the embassy in Valencia, and I visited the consulate in Barcelona in the month of August, and I really hope that if we are thinking in terms of increasing British prestige in Franco's territory. they will make a better show at it than we are making either at Valencia or Barcelona just now. I think the condition under which the Chargé d'Affaires al Valencia has got to do his work are shocking. While his chief at Hendaye is presumably in comfort, you are keeping that man in rotten climatic conditions, in inadequate premises, with an inadequate staff at Valencia. Now I want to know what you are going to do with the fellows you are sending into the Franco territory? What are they going to have in the way of accommodation for their work? What are they going to have in the way of staff? Are they going to be chargeable to the Board of Trade or to the Foreign Office? I am told here that their duties are purely industrial and commercial—nothing to do with politics. We have been assured that they are not to do diplomatic work.
I want from the Foreign Secretary tonight a statement of just what they are going to do. This is going to entail considerable expense. What are they going to do; what are their duties to be? I want something more than the vague statement that they are going to look after British commercial and industrial interests. Are they going to do the debt collecting, as is suggested; are they to act as bailiffs, collecting the bad debts of British investors in Franco's Spain? Is that to be the job that the public money of Great Britain is to be spent on—appointing debt collectors, when we have been told here by all the enthusiastic supporters of Franco that behind Franco's lines everything is and has beer for an extended period carried on in the most orderly fashion; that life behind' the lines proceeds in the Franco territory


according to all the best precedents set in British commerce and British industry; that we have nothing to fear and that Franco's friendliness with Britain is unchallenged.
A right hon. and gallant Gentleman who sits normally on this bench always applauds everything that is being done in that part of Spain; and it is true that an hon. and gallant Gentleman even applauds the sinking of British ships; but they assure us that everything is proceeding quite normally in that territory and that our trade interests are perfectly safe in the hands of Franco. Well, what are these men going to do there? Is it the case that British interests that are still left operating in that territory are not being allowed to carry on their work? Is it that when the Franco authorities get goods delivered from British enterprises in that territory they are not paid for? What are these fellows going to do? If they have no diplomatic status, if their duties are to be of the trivial kind that is suggested by the Foreign Secretary, it is not worth sending them, because the office boys of the particular firms that are involved can go out and do the debt collecting, hand in the accounts, and all the rest of it.
British national prestige and British public money and British public servants should not be used for petty little jobs for commercialists in Spain, either in the Franco territory or the Government territory This step must have something bigger to justify it than anything that has yet been said from the Treasury Box by the. Foreign Secretary. If it is only to do the petty trivial things that have been suggested so far, it is not worth doing, and if it is a step to something bigger, if it is a step towards recognition of the Franco piratical banditry as being equivalent to responsible Government—if that is the purpose o fit—to make a step towards that—then I say it is a drastic step further on the downward course that we have been pursuing in this matter right from the beginning. My hon. Friends and I believed and said in this House that this conception of non-intervention would never work. Why not throw it overboard entirely now, openly and definitely? Take your side—the side of the Spanish Government—the only side that a country that pretends to he democratic has any right to be on, rather than pander to what appears at the moment more or less successful

treason? In the long run it will not make for the best for Great Britain to support treason of that description; and to say that there are certain outstanding debts requiring collection does not seem to me an adequate justification for the step that is now being taken.

9.31 p.m.

Duchess of Atholl: It was with great relief that I heard my right hon. Friend assure the House that the appointment of these agents is in no sense recognition of the insurgent authorities in Spain; but I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that this step is open to be regarded as a concession to those authorities and, therefore, I do wish to ask him if as a quid pro quo for this concession he has got assurances from General Franco that there will be no more of the breaches of international law which have occurred in several instances, as he knows well. There was the case of the "Stanwold" captured on 8th September. The port outside which she was taken was not blockaded. She had no contraband on board, only a cargo of food and medical supplies. I understand she was captured because it was supposed or believed that she was consigned by a person described as a Red consul. She was brought before a Prize Court in Ferrol, before which ships are brought and disposed of, according to the political beliefs of those who have consigned their cargo. My right hon. Friend knows better than I do that any procedure of that kind has no place in international law, and I think it is most desirable that we should get assurances from General Franco that nothing more of that kind will happen. Again, on 27th October a few days after the fall of Gijon two more ships of the same company were attacked and captured outside the three-mile limit though they had not been attempting to land any cargo and were only rescuing refugees. Yet they were attacked and captured. I feel it very necessary to ask my right hon. Friend that he should obtain an assurance that there will be no more breaches of international law of this or any other kind, and that there will be compensation for the damage which various ships have suffered in consequence of breaches of international law.
Still more should I like to ask my right hon. Friend whether, before giving this concession, he had received any assurance that the plea for clemency which, along with the French Government, he made on


behalf of the thousands of Asturian miners who were taken prisoners and whose lives may be in great danger will be acceded to. I should have liked to feel that no concession of any kind had been made until we had known that there would be clemency and that these men had been sent to safe internment somewhere. I cannot help feeling that this is an unfortunate moment at which to have made a concession, when so great a humanitarian issue is, so far as I know, still hanging in the balance.
Finally, I must say that I cannot help regretting that we do not seem to have kept in step with our French allies in this matter. My right hon. Friend said specifically to-day that he had informed the French Foreign Minister of this action, but I think he made it clear that he had not had any consultation with him before this decision was taken by our Government. I do not pretend that we should be in consultation with the French over everything that may be under discussion, but we cannot forget that they consulted us before we both embarked on the nonintervention policy, and we believe that both Governments have been in close consultation throughout the carrying out of that policy. I am sure that none of us can ever forget that nearly, as many of us feel, as the issue of the Spanish civil war affects the safety of this country and its imperial communications, it affects still more nearly our French allies. We ought, therefore, to take the greatest care to assure ourselves that we do not put difficulties in their way, and put no difficulties in the way of the victory of the legal Government in Spain, a course which I believe to be alone consistent with British and with French interests.
I cannot, of course, speak for what was in the mind of the French Government when Signor Mussolini refused to take part in the tripartite conversations to which our Government had invited him, but I was travelling through France on the day on which the news of that Italian refusal was received, and I gathered that the French seemed to assume that, as a result, the French frontier would be opened for the passage of the arms which the Government of Spain has the right under international law to buy. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that we were not quite in line with French public opinion, anyhow at that

time, though I cannot say what the opinion of the French Government was; and it has added to my anxiety to learn that the French Government were not consulted as to this new step. In view of the news which we have received of the signature of an anti-Communist pact between Italy, Germany and Japan I cannot help feeling that this failure to keep complete step between the two great democracies of Western Europe is a slightly disturbing factor in a situation which causes us all great anxiety.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: The Noble Lady seems to have a sublime faith in the assurances of General Franco, but I have long since ceased to place any reliance on the word of General Franco or his type. It must be evident to all realists that these men only do things which are uncongenial to them when they are forced; that is clear from the Nyon Pact which was arranged. Does anybody think that the piracy in the Mediterranean would have stopped if France and Britain had not called the bluff of these dictators? I was very much interested in the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Liberal party. We must all have sympathy with him over the deep disturbances which passed through his mind and the cogitations which led to a series of questions to the Foreign Secretary. I feel sure that the Foreign Secretary will not have the slightest difficulty in giving that satisfactory answer to the Liberal party which was asked for so graciously by the right hon. Gentleman, but I venture to view this matter from a realistic angle.
General Franco occupies, as we have been told, two-thirds of Spain. In those two-thirds of Spain are vital British interests. After all, has not "Business as usual" always been a slogan of Britain? "Business as usual" even when war prevails. Naturally we have to protect our material interests in Spain, and this is the method which the right hon. Gentleman is adopting. It is he himself who has put this matter on this material plane, and therefore we have to view it from that angle. I do not follow some of the arguments put forward this evening. I think Italy will justifiably have some grievance against us after to-night when the conquest of Abyssinia is not recognised, but the conquest of two-thirds of Spain is. It will be interesting to see how His Majesty's Government


eventually deal at Geneva with the question of recognising Italian interests in Ethiopia. Perhaps the Government may have some wonderful expedient which will satisfy not only Italy but the majority of the Government supporters in this House.
There are only two points which I wish to bring before the right hon. Gentleman tonight. He said in his statement to-day that he had been able to obtain satisfaction on two points, and I congratulate him, but he has paid a heavy price for it. The satisfaction is that seven British merchant ships illegally held, have been released by General Franco, or will be released, and a promise that two cargoes of iron ore are to be placed at the disposal of the British Ambassador at Hendaye. Has he in those negotiations forgotten that British naval seamen's lives have been lost by the action of General Franco? Does he remember the sinking of His Majesty's ship "Hunter"? Has General Franco been asked whether he would give this country satisfaction in return for the substantial recognition that we are giving him? To-day widows and dependants of those men who lost their lives in that wanton act are being supported by the taxpayers of this country, and to-day the Foreign Secretary of this country has bartered seven British merchant ships and two cargoes of iron ore for something which is far more valuable to General Franco. But perhaps that is what we must expect of the National Government's Foreign Secretary to-day. I like to think, in reading history, that there may have been a time when the Foreign Secretaries of this country, in negotiating with insurgent generals, would have reminded them that they cannot get away with it so easily as all that. British lives to-day are still as valuable as they were in the times of the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman.
Let us carry our realistic survey farther. We are told that these agents will be for commercial interests, among others, debt collecting. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that these agents, without the status, as he has told us, which they are not to get, will have sufficient power to press the demands of this country? Does he not think that the German and Italian representatives are more adequately equipped to press their countrymen's demands? Even to-day

soldiers, tanks, guns, and aeroplanes apparently have some potent force in getting recognition even of debt collecting demands, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might reconsider giving diplomatic status to these agents if he wants to collect his debts.
The German people have for many years feared what they call encirclement. To-day the British nation themselves can fear encirclement. It is acts such as are perpetrated by the Foreign Secretary and which we are now discussing which are causing this country to be encircled. I know that it is not the slightest use of me to press this point upon the National Government and their supporters. Time alone will tell. The diplomacy of this country in the last five or six years has been terrible. We are making a rod for own backs by acts such as these. In due time, the supporters of the National Government will see the result of this patchwork policy—that is all it is—and this patchwork diplomacy which are being followed by the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to-night.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I used to tell a story about a couple of lads who were fighting in the street. It is difficult to tell it at the present moment in the vulgar way in which it was usually told, because it might cause some offence. Two lads were fighting, when one of the fathers called to his lad to stop fighting and come home. The lad shouted back: "I can't stop, because he has insulted my religion." He went on fighting. Once more the father called, but the boy replied: "I can't stop fighting because he has slandered my nationality," and he went on fighting. Later on the father called again: "Will you stop fighting and come upstairs?" "Father," the boy said, "I can't stop fighting. I am standing on sixpence" The Foreign Secretary has made most elaborate speeches about the need for peace, about his devotion to the League of Nations and his concern for collective security. Speeches have been made on different occasions that were reported in the whole of the Press of the country. Idealism seemed to be his guiding star. Surely if there was one thing in which anyone concerned with peace, collective security and the League of Nations should have been interested in it is the welfare of the government of a Member State.
This afternoon the Foreign Secretary has stripped himself of all the hypocritical verbiage. There is no more talk about the League of Nations and collective security; he tells us that in the Spanish territory which is occupied by Franco there are great commercial and financial interests. Yes, but he does not tell us that one of the most important financial interests in Spain, the predominating power in the great iron mines in Spain, is Messrs. Guest, Keen and Nettlefold, and that several Members of the Cabinet have big interests in that organisation.

Mr. Eden: I do not know.

Mr. Gallacher: You do not know? Well, please ask your fellow members. Whatever you do is in the interests of your own class, whether it is represented by the National Government, by Mussolini or by Hitler. The right hon. Gentleman has been at the Box when question after question has been put in connection with Italian activities in Spain. On every occasion the Foreign Secretary has got up and said: "I have no information." He has never at any time had a word of information that has been directed against Italy in connection with the Spanish situation. We have reached a position now in which the Foreign Secretary, on the strength of financial interest, makes a new move in Spain. He has made moves before, and every move has been directed against the Spanish Government. Please do not tell me of the Nyon Agreement. Every move has been directed against the Spanish Government.
He has the cunning of the American gangster. When the American gangster is preparing for some particular action he finds it necessary to provide himself not only with an alibi—that is the common practice of the American gangster—but something else which is even more essential. An alibi can be broken down, but the American gangster will always provide himself, if he possibly can, with what they call a "fall guy"; in other words, somebody to take the blame. The Foreign Secretary on occasion after occasion has used M. Blum as a fall guy for the policy that he was already pursuing. The policy of nonintervention has, right along the line,

been a case on every occasion of action against the Spanish Government.
There is no possibility now of getting any further use out of M. Blum for his. own purposes, and he has to come out more openly with this proposal for sending agents over to Spain. Franco will send here a similar number of agents. This is a question not only of having Franco's agents in London but of having them in Glasgow and all over the country, and if they are as non-political as the notorious Moral we shall have them continually operating. This gentleman is associated with a letter sent out to those who support the Foreign Secretary, and who are delighted at the new move. He knows the character of the people with whom we are dealing. The letter says that Franco's Spain stands for everything that Englishmen hold dear, such as freedom of worship and the sanctity of human life. Members who are supporting the Foreign Secretary and this new move tell us that Franco stands for the sanctity of home life, after Guernica, Almeria and all the atrocities and horrors that have been perpetrated by this organised gang of butchers. Moral is associated with them.
Now we are to have more of them, all busy operating over here. The step which the Foreign Secretary is taking is a very serious matter. He says it is not recognition, but no matter how the Foreign Secretary puts it, it will be recognised in every country in the light of a new step in the recognition and the support of Franco. Franco is not going to win; never mind about the support of the Italians, the Germans and the National Government Franco is not going to win. This is a very serious step to take at this time when the Robbers' Pact has been organised in Rome. It is not a pact against Communism; it is a pact against the world. It is a pact directed towards securing territory. Does anybody mean to tell me that Japan went into Manchuria or is going into China to fight Communism? Is it riot to get territory? Did Italy go into Abyssinia to fight Communism or to get territory? Has Hitler got his eyes on Africa because he wants to fight Communism or because he wants to get territory? I tell the Foreign Secretary that Hitler has thousands of agents in Africa now organising, and spreading among the


Afrikanders the old old story that they belong to the great Deutsche family. When Hitler asks for Colonies in Africa, is he going to be satisfied with Colonies? He has his agents operating throughout South Africa; never a ship goes to South Africa but there are dozens of Nazi agents on it. South Africa is simply covered with Nazi agents, all carrying on propaganda, especially among the Afrikanders. Is that for the purpose of fighting Communism? No.
Those who speak of fighting Communism do so in order to make all kinds of divisions in the forces that are likely to be operating against them; it is in order, if possible, to isolate the Soviet Union, and not for the purpose of attacking the Soviet Union. The Germans know better than to do that: the Japanese know better; but if they can isolate the Soviet Union, and make a division between France and Britain, the British Empire is at the mercy of those who talk of attacking Communism. Apparently the Foreign Secretary does not know that either. Already the anti-Communist propaganda has started. I read in the paper to-night that there is going to be some anti-God conference in London. It is a pack of lies, and it is the Nazis who are responsible for that propaganda. No such proposal has been suggested anywhere; there is no possibility of it; but already this propaganda is being directed towards a particular object—towards the isolation of the British Empire.
This is another step in the course which is continually pursued by the Foreign Secretary towards supporting reaction in Spain, as he is continually supporting reaction in Europe. It is a scandal that the National Government should, at this time when the forces of reaction are everywhere gathering strength, and without the people of this country having a chance to say a word, take such a step as this, which is recognised everywhere, and will be accepted by Franco, by Mussolini and by Hitler, as a recognition of Franco. One hon. Member has said that it was a victory for Franco. It is a victory for Mussolini, and will be hailed in Italy as such. An hon. Member who drew an analogy from Russia was very properly taken up by the Leader of the Liberal party. He drew attention to the fact that in 1920 agents from Russia were allowed to come to this country, and that in 1921

a representative was sent from this country to Russia.
The Leader of the Liberal party rightly pointed out that that step was taken in preparation for diplomatic recognition; and this step that is being taken by the National Government without the consent of the people of this country is a similar step; it is already a recognition of Franco, and is a very dangerous action in the present situation. It will have very serious effects, not only against the Spanish Government, but against the people of this country. Hon. Members opposite, and the Foreign Secretary, are not concerned about the people of this country; they are concerned about Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds. What was the answer of the Foreign Secretary? I would ask the Foreign Secretary, as a special favour, to begin, if he has the courage to do so, by reading the beginning of his answer this afternoon;
We have commercial and financial interests.
But the interests of the people of this country are more important than any commercial and financial interests. I again assert that these financial and commercial interests are interests of members of the Cabinet. Let them have the courage to stand up and admit it. [Laughter.] Why do hon. Members laugh? Are they proud of the fact that the members of the Cabinet are more concerned with their own interests, are more concerned with the cash at stake, than they are with the interests of the people of this country? Where have all the ideals gone now? Mr. Baldwin won elections by talking of ideals—the League of Nations, collective security, and so on. How you all supported Mr. Baldwin and his "high ideals." But now the Foreign Secretary, forgetting all about high ideals, tells us of commercial interests, and I say that the commercial interests are in the Cabinet of the National Government. I demand, and I have a right to demand, that, before such a serious step is taken, before such a criminal betrayal as is now proposed is carried out, a referendum should be taken of the people of this country, in order that they may have an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to whether this policy of support for Franco should be carried any further, or whether, as we here believe, the policy should be ended


and a proper and correct attitude adopted towards the legitimate Government in Spain.

10.3 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I am not going to follow the last speaker over the very wide ground that he has covered, nor to detain the House long. I have risen merely for the purpose of putting one question which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to answer, and of giving my reasons for asking it. We understand that the object of appointing these agents is solely to protect British financial and commercial interests. Does that mean that the Government will hold itself excluded from obtaining information—private information, perhaps—from these agents on matters which are of British interest but which do not affect commercial interests? I hope that that is not the case, because, after all, British responsibility in the occupied territories is not limited to British interests. As the initiators of the Non-Intervention experiment, we have a considerable responsibility for its results, but we have almost no means of observing what those results are, and that is why, although I share a great many of the fears and doubts and dislikes regarding this proposal to appoint agents, I think it would be a very considerable compensation if we could know that it means that His Majesty's Government will have eyes and ears in those places to which the agents are appointed. It has been one of the weak points of the Non-Intervention Agreement from the first that, although we were taking a great responsibility in introducing that agreement, we had no observers whatsoever on the spot in Spanish territory either to tell us what was actually happening or to put any check upon what was happening.
Until the frontier control scheme started, last April, we had not even observers on the frontier. As a result, in matters of common observation His Majesty's Government and the Non-Intervention Committee have appeared to get no information as to what is taking place in regard to the observance of non-intervention. In the Government territory there were at least consuls, and we have always assumed that through the consuls His Majesty's Government did presumably obtain a certain amount of information, even if it was only private informa-

tion. But in the Franco territory there has not even been that means of information. It may be said that it is not part of a consul's direct business to report upon such matters as the treatment of prisoners or breaches of non-intervention. I believe that it is not uncustomary for representations to be received from consuls on questions which are not of direct interest to British subjects or British mercantile interests.
In the matter of refugees, we have had frequent references to the fact that the removal of consuls from ports under bombardment prevented their use as part of the machinery for evacuating refugees. I would like to know, would the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that these officials will be used for discovering what is going on, as regards non-intervention and the arrival of foreign troops, and what is going on in regard to those humanitarian methods to which my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) referred, such as the treatment of political prisoners. I think one of the most dreadful things in this terrible civil war has been the execution of political prisoners. We have had terrible accounts of executions in towns captured by the insurgents.

Commander Bower: What about the other side?

Miss Rathbone: There have been no similar accounts in regard to them.

Commander Bower: Does the hon. Member suggest that it is not going on on the other side?

Miss Rathbone: If there are similar atrocities going on on the other side, that makes it worse. I admit that at one time there were excesses on the other side.

Commander Bower: That is the first admission we have bad.

Miss Rathbone: I do not think that even at that early stage it had ever been said that the Republican Government authorised or desired those cruel excesses. That Government, deserted as it was by the Army, Navy, and police, and by the greater part of the civil service, was too weak to keep order. As soon as it got stronger, it did restrain those excesses. We have never had the charge, even from the Franco Press, that in that part of Spain there were military tribunals set up day by day, condemning people on


no other ground than that they had been, as combatants or otherwise, in the service of the other side. That was the account given us the other day, in an organ which could not be suspected of being sympathetic to the Spanish Government, of what is going on in Franco territory. Did the hon. Member read an account the other day of how 16 prisoners were tried, and 14 of them sentenced to death, and the judge himself said that the standard for the death penalty was that anyone should have been an officer on the other side? That, in my mind, is a more terrible thing than the bombardment of non-combatants, which has been condemned by the world, in China. It is a new thing. I did not mean to go into that, but I was drawn into it by interruptions.
That is why, when I heard the news that an agent has been appointed in Franco territory, I thought it would be a good thing if, by that means, the Government was providing itself with eyes and ears in that part of Spain, and sources of information which I hope will be impartial information. I believe it will be some sort of check on those atrocities if it is known that there are Englishmen in that part reporting to their Government what is taking place, and that the authorities there will have to face the tribunal of world opinion for any violation of international law. I do not expect the Government to publish such information, but, for God's sake, if they have the truth, do not let them continue to turn blind eyes and deaf ears.

10.12 p.m.

Wing-Commander James: I did not intend to intervene in the Debate, but I was induced to do so by the observations of the hon. Member who has just sat down. I was in Santander on 6th October, and I attended a trial at the court there. I was given free access to the local equivalent of the Judge Advocate's Office. I examined the file and checked the card index, and I assert that there was no foundation whatever for her wild and unsubstantiated charges.

Miss Rathbone: The "Sunday Times"—not mine.

Colonel Wedgwood: Can the hon. Gentleman read and speak Spanish?

Wing-Commander James: No, I cannot; but I attended the trial with two

Englishmen, both speaking fluent Spanish, and in the office there were a number of people who spoke fluent French. I have a number of accurate figures, which I checked over myself with the card index. The total number of persons held for trial in the province of Santander from 27th August to 5th October was 5,329· I am not going to pretend that before what you might call the "prisoners' cage" stage there has not been undoubtedly a great deal of bumping-off.

Mr. Bellenger: Was that in the files?

Wing-Commander James: No. I am trying to be fair. It is a very bitter war, and if either side take prisoners I do not doubt that they are rough, but I do assert that when prisoners, civil and military, reach what may be called the "prisoners' cage" stage in the captured territory they get a very much better deal than I should expect. There were held for trial up to 6th October, 5,329. There had been tried, 1,566. I should explain that there are two forms of trial. There are preliminary inquiries in which sworn evidence is taken in writing, and this inquiry either dismisses the charge or puts it forward to a military court. The cases dismissed at the preliminary inquiry numbered 804; acquitted at the military trial, 156; sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, 392; condemned to death, 214, executed, 42, reprieved, three. I have checked, through the card index, of all the people who have been executed. I was given the figures in one office, and I asked to see the card index and they produced it, and I checked up the length of time between condemnation to death and execution of all the cases, and it was just on 10 days. Every case was referred to Salamanca for examination. In three cases—the index and cards were there—Salamanca reprieved a person who had been condemned to death in Santander. Without enlarging upon this, I assert that, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the very difficult situation in a town which had been captured less than six weeks before, and in which it was popularly supposed there had been grave outrages, the general system of administration and the attempt to provide rough justice was very good. I do not see, in the circumstances, that any but military courts could have been instituted.
I went into the court as a trial was just starting, unexpected and uninvited, and there were in the body of the hall not fewer than 300 members of the general public of both sexes and of all classes. The prosecutor said—it caused no surprise at the back of the hall, and, therefore, I am inclined to believe that it was probably not put on for my benefit; I accept nothing as certain but it excited no comment and appeared to come in the ordinary course of the remarks of the young man who prosecuted—and I give the verbatim translation given to me by my two Spanish-speaking English friends, "It has been decreed by General Franco that the bearing of arms for a political ideal is not an offence. We are concerned in this court only with persons who are alleged to have committed crimes whether in uniform or not in uniform; we are not concerned with people who have been fighting for an ideal."

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Eden: I do not propose, in my few remarks to-night, to enter upon—I do not know whether to call it controversy or not—the exchange of information which has taken place across the Floor of the House about executions of prisoners, and so forth. I would only say that, when the time comes for reckoning up the toll of the Spanish civil war, I am convinced that there will be on both sides a terrible death roll of people who have not been taking part in the war. As far as our own country is concerned, I believe that, when the controversy has died down, what will leave the most satisfaction in the minds of our fellow-citizens will be the tens of thousands of Spaniards on both sides who have been rescued or exchanged, or taken away from the place of danger where they were. Beyond that, on that aspect of the subject, I have nothing to say to-night.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to whether the agents would provide information on the subject?

Mr. Eden: We must take things in their due order. I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) was more than justified in the taunts which he hurled at the Opposition to-night. I have the greatest respect for the debating powers of the right hon. Gen-

tleman who opened the case from the Front Opposition Bench, but I have never seen a speaker on behalf of a party so embarrassed as to what he was to say. The right hon. Gentleman did his best. At least for 10 minutes of the 30 minutes he addressed us he spoke about the exchange of agents, but the rest of the time he wandered around the world, pointing an anxious finger at this point or that where he thought the situation was growing increasingly anxious; situations which had nothing whatever to do with the exchange of agents.
As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman a reflection came to my mind, not for the first time when listening to hon. and right hon. Members opposite when they are talking on international questions, that there is a Jekyll and Hyde in their character—a Jekyll which is interested only in our selling goods abroad and in finding employment for our people, and a Hyde which is interested only in international Socialism and seeking at all costs to prove that every move of this Government is directed by hostility towards international Socialism.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposed action is inconsistent with non-intervention. I can only say that I most sincerely wish that nothing more inconsistent with non-intervention had been perpetrated during the last 18 months. If that had been so the state of the world and the state of Spain would be considerably happier than it is to-day. This is in no sense a breach of non-intervention. The right hon. Gentleman was nearer the mark from his own point of view when he said that in what we were doing we were not keeping an equal balance between the two contending parties. Even there he was wrong, because the only diplomatic representation which we have in Spain is diplomatic representation with the Spanish Government. That is our only diplomatic representation and is carried out by His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Valencia and will be carried out at Barcelona in a short time.
The right hon. Gentleman tried to create a great atmosphere of suspicion. He asked: "How long have these negotiations been going on? Have you been trying to put them through without the House of Commons knowing anything


about it?" I do not feel so desperately guilty about that. If the House of Commons does not like negotiations of this character, it has always a perfect right to express its opinion of the Foreign Secretary and His Majesty's Government. I do not think the House can expect any Foreign Secretary to come down and say: "I am entering into negotiations with such and such a foreign country." Not only should I give to the public full notice about it but I should give any other Government which does not want the negotiations to succeed full advertisement of what I am doing, so that they have ample notice to put a spoke in the wheel. On a basis like that it is impossible for any Government or any diplomatic service to fulfil any part of its duty in such matters.
Here I take up the charge about the French Government. The right hon. Gentleman tried to make a great deal out of it. He said that we had not consulted them, that we just informed them when it was all over and they had to take it or leave it. That was not what I said this afternoon. If I gave that impression it was the last impression I wanted to give. We informed the French Government long before the negotiations reached anything like a concluding stage; in fact, we informed them of our intentions, and, of course, the position was that which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), with his Foreign Office experience, put very fairly to the House. In cases such as this, where British trading interests are at stake, the French Government could, if they wished, make representations against what we were doing if they thought it was so important internationally as to surpass our commercial interests. They did not make any such representations.
I can assure the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) that we told them what we were doing and also assure him that there is nothing very sinister about this procedure. We told them more than once what we proposed to do. They made no representations against it, and it is very unlikely that they would do so because, to be perfectly frank, their relations with General Franco all through the year have been much better than ours. They have far more consular officers in Spain than we have. They have an advantage which we have not. Their Con-

sul-General at San Sebastian has been their intermediary with the insurgent forces. We have no similar Consul-General throughout General Franco's territory, and therefore it is natural that they would not make a complaint. But I. want to say in all seriousness to the House that I hope nobody is going to suggest that because we have taken this step there is, therefore, any modification in the fundamental attitude of this country towards France or of France towards us. It really would be a profound mistake to try and magnify out of a matter of this kind, important to our commerce as it is, any suggestion of that kind. On the contrary, our relations with the French Government are, and I am confident will continue to be, so close and so intimate that there is no question of a matter of this kind, important to our trade interests but not of international significance, having the effect which hon. Members opposite suggest.
I resent a little the attitude of hon. Members opposite on this question. Something is done by Anglo-French policy of which they approve. In the early days of non-intervention hon. Members opposite approved—

Mr. Stephen: No.

Mr. Eden: I am not speaking of hon. Members below the Gangway. The "Daily Herald" approved, and threw a bouquet at the feet of M. Blum, "Look at this great statesman." Then hon. Members opposite did not like intervention so much. When the results of Anglo-French co-operation are satisfactory it is due to a French lead, if they are unsatisfactory it is due to the attitude of His Majesty's Government. I do not think that is a just way of looking at the matter.
What are the objections to this proposal? Nobody denies that General Franco has control of two-thirds of Spain at the present time. Nobody denies that there are large British interests there. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has been positively eloquent about them. Nobody denies that these territories are large buyers of British goods and sellers of products which we need. Last year was a bad year naturally for Spanish trade, in view of the conditions prevailing; yet even last year Spain took nearly £3,500,000 of British exports and re-exports.

Mr. Noel-Baker: And Russia?

Mr. Eden: Russian trade with Spain is now going up, and ours is going down. If that gives satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman, he may have it. During the first nine months of this year, the territory over which General Franco has control has purchased goods from this country to the value of just over £2,000,000 out of total purchases of £2,800,000 by the whole of Spain during that period.

Mr. Bellenger: Have they paid for them?

Mr. Eden: This is the sterling allocated to pay for British goods purchased by General Franco's territory. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that I was trying to make some political point when I mentioned coal, but I was not. It so happens that coal accounts for the largest part of these figures. The coal imported into that part of Spain for the first nine months of this year was worth just under £500,000, a not unimportant figure. When the hon. Member talks about the Asturian miners, I do not know what he means. Does he mean that if we did not send British coal, coal would be got from the Asturian miners? If he means that, he is quite wrong. If we did not sell the coal to them, it would be sold to them by Germany. If it did not come from Durham and South Wales, as it does at present, it would come from Germany. Let me mention some of the other items: £270,000 for tinplate; £180,000 for cotton goods; £80,000 for petrol; £80,000 for jute. During the next few days, the state of the jute industry is likely to be discussed in this House. I have no desire to exaggerate these figures. The House will notice that I am not now speaking of British commercial interests in that territory in the sense of financial interests—the sense which the hon. Member for West Fife mentioned. I am speaking of the goods which we are selling to that part of Spain which, as I have said, for the first nine months of this year have been worth over £2,000,000. I suggest that for that trade it is worth taking the normal steps which are normally taken in order to do all we can to protect it and to further it.
It is inevitable that in time of war trade becomes dislocated, and our work in that respect becomes increasingly difficult. When hon. Members realise that during

the last nine months we have had to send our messengers from 200 to 300 miles to the nearest authorities in the territory under General Franco's control, they will see for themselves the inconvenience under which we have worked. I must say that I am astonished by the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Scarcely a day passes without their getting up in the House and saying, "Why have you not represented that to General Franco? Why have you not pointed that out?" Yet when we appoint somebody who will not have to travel 300 miles in order to represent this or that, hon. Members opposite are the first to complain.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall asked a number of questions to which I would like to give answers. I will deal first with the point which was made by the right hon. Gentleman who opened, and which I thought to be a perfectly fair one, when he asked why we did not move consuls from one part of General Franco's territory to another. We have only two career consuls there, and we want them where they are. What we want is more help for our trade than at present, and shifting people from one place to another would not meet that need. It would be possible, as I tried to explain at Question Time to appoint new consuls, but that would mean exequaturs, which mean a measure of recognition. That, among other reasons, is precisely why we did not wish to follow that method. I thought that for that at least I would receive the blessing of hon. Members opposite, but, not for the first time, I have been disappointed by them.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall asked a specific question to which I would like to reply. He asked whether this arrangement constitutes any form of recognition. The answer is, No; and the agreed communiqué which will be issued when this arrangement is arrived at, I hope within a short time now, will make that absolutely clear. It means recognition neither as a Government, nor as belligerents. Then, the right hon. Gentleman asked would this enable General Franco to put pressure on us by threatening to turn our agents out? The reply is, "No more that it would enable us to put pressure on General Franco by threatening to turn his agents out." But that is not the purpose of the appointments, either in one case or


the other. He also asked would the activities of these agents be limited to trade? The answer, which is also the answer to the. Noble Lady, is, "Yes." Their purpose is to be limited to trade, to the protection of British commerce and the protection of British nationals, and is to be non-political. But I do not wish to be too exclusive in what I say. If hon. Members ask me, as no doubt they will, whether we cannot make representations on this or that or the other subject, I will not always say "No." The right hon. Gentleman asked what would be the character of the individual whom we would appoint. I can say that he will certainly be the best man I can find for the post, because I think it is an important post. He will also be a man who has had consular experience for the greater part of his life. Beyond that I would rather not pledge myself. I was also asked "Will this be better for our trade?" The answer clearly is "Yes."
The right hon. Gentleman who opened seemed inclined to sneer at the seven ships and the two cargoes of iron ore which had been released. If he had to answer as many questions as I have had to answer on the subject, he would not treat it so lightly. Now that the ships are released there can be no more questions about them, but when they were not released there were three questions about them at least twice a week. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong when he says that this is a price which we have paid to General Franco in order to get these ships and this iron ore released. That is not so. A pre-condition of the negotiations was the release of the ships and of the iron ore, and the exchange which we got is the exchange which we wanted—that is to say, the presence of consular agents to do this work at Salamanca and other points in Spain.

Mr. Attlee: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of personnel may I ask will the representatives of General Franco in this country also be persons solely dealing with trade questions, persons of commercial experience, and not politicians or diplomats?

Mr. Eden: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point. These appointments have to be made by them, and naturally, as an ordinary matter of courtesy, I have no doubt that

they will consult us as to who is to be appointed. But I do hope that the House, if I may say so with respect, will not treat the Franco authorities as if they were something different from any other authorities. I have no reason to suppose that they will not pursue the ordinary forms in any arrangements that have to be made.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall asked was there any precedent for what we are doing. There are, I believe, a number of precedents, the most interesting of which is that during the Great War we accredited an agent to President Venezelos when he was in rebellion against the Greek Government of the day, to whom we had also accredited a representative. That is an almost exact parallel with what we are doing at the present time. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman opposite says that we were fighting then. Thank Heaven we are not fighting now, but I do not think that vitiates the argument. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite wish we were fighting now but we are not.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that there is no analogy between the case in which we were fighting in a war on the side of M. Venezelos, whom we had induced to come in with us, and the case of the civil war at the present time? There is no analogy at all and no precedent.

Mr. Eden: I will, of course, accept that that is the hon. Gentleman's point of view. He is entitled to his point of view just as I am entitled to mine. But I have no desire to say anything offensive, and I regret it—

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman said that he had said something, and that he regretted it. There is nothing more to be said.

Mr. Eden: Perhaps I may be allowed to conclude what I have to say. There was an argument throughout this Debate that in what we were seeking to do, we were in some way prejudicing the course of the Spanish Civil War, and hon. Members opposite maintain that the Press of


the world will make much of this and will say that it is recognition of General Franco, whatever it really is, and so on. That may be, but the Press of the world is not always absolutely accurate. I have had put into my hands a paper to-night, an extract from which may perhaps interest the House. It is a message from Budapest, and it states:
Sir Samuel Hoare, Britain's Home Secretary, has arrived in Budapest on a private visit. He is staying several days.
That is not an inapt illustration that the world's Press is not always accurate.
In conclusion, I would only say this: The Government did believe that this arrangement in the special conditions of the present time was a practical and a reasonable one. We believe it also to be an arrangement in the interests of British trade, and that is why we have done it. That is the purpose. There is no ulterior motive. We believe it will be clearly understood by the country, and may I add that we hope, after the full explanation which I have endeavoured to give, hon. Members opposite will not think it necessary to divide this House on this issue.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I do not rise for the purpose of carrying on this discussion at any great length, but I want to point out one or two points to which we have had no reply. The first point that was put to the Prime Minister and afterwards to the Foreign Secretary was as to the time when this arrangement was come to. The announcement was made while the Foreign Secretary was away. The Foreign Secretary made a speech in this House, and then proceeded to Brussels. We want know whether this arrangement was concluded in his absence or before he went away. If in his absence, it is a very curious way of dealing with important matters like this, with the Foreign Secretary absent. If, as a matter of fact, it was concluded before he went away, there seems no reason why, in making a full statement on foreign affairs, he should not have told this House as to what was proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think it was very odd that the Opposition should be suspicious of the Government. At the beginning of his speech he quoted Jekyll and Hyde. The

right hon. Gentleman is always coming before this House as a nice, kindly Jekyll, but the actions of the Government almost always turn out to he those of Mr. Hyde. If we should take what the Government said, if we should take all the speeches that were made on behalf of democracy by Mr. Baldwin, if we should take all the speeches of the Foreign Secretary on foreign affairs, and then look at what has actually happened, we find an enormous difference. The fact remains that with all the fair speeches that we get from the Foreign Secretary, the actions of the British Government for the last 18 months have invariably inured to the side of General Franco. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The weight of opinion on the Conservative benches—and I am not alluding to hon. Members below the Gangway, but to weightier opinion—has been on the side of General Franco, and he is the man they are backing to win. In our view, while you may put up a plausible case on the ground of British interests, as a matter of fact this is a new departure. You can find no direct precedent for sending these agents. They are not to have diplomatic immunity and they are not to be consuls. I am entirely unsatisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply with regard to the emissary whom General Franco is to send to this country. If he is, as we gather from the Press, the Duke of Berwick and Alba, I am not aware that he has any commercial experience. The whole of this business causes in our minds the greatest suspicion. Although it is not recognition de facto or de jure, it is a kind of half-way house towards it. It has given General Franco satisfaction, and that is clearly shown by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is able to use this exchange of agents as a bargaining point to get the rights of British ships on the high seas respected, instead of using the rights of this country to get them respected. In view of this, and in view of the whole record of the past 18 months, we cannot take the right hon. Gentleman's protestations at their face value. In spite of Dr. Jekyll we shall vote against Mr. Hyde.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 107.

Division No. 6.]
AYES.
[7.33 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Findlay, Sir E.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Fleming, E. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Apsley, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Petherick, M.


Asks, Sir R. W.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Pilkington, R.


Assheton, R.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Grant-Ferris, R.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsbotham, H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bernays, R. H.
Hambro, A. V.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Hannah, I. C.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Bull, B. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rowlands, G.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Butler, R. A
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Salt, E. W.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Holmes, J. S.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hopkinson, A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Channon, H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Christie, J. A.
Joel, D. J. B.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Storey, S.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Keeling, E. H.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwa[...]k, N.)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cox, H. B. T.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Cranborne, Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lewis, O.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crooke, J. S.
Loftus, P. C.
Tate, Mavis C.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lyons, A. M.
Touche, G. C.


Cross, R. H.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Crossley, A. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Turton, R. H.


Crowder. J. F. E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Davidson, Viscountess
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
McKie, J. H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


De Chair, S. S.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Magnay, T.
Warrender, Sir V.


Denville, Alfred
Maitland, A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Doland, G. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Watt, G. S. H.


Donner, P. W.
Markham, S. F.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Eastwood. J. F.
Moreing, A. C.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Morris. J. P. (Salford, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ellis, Sir G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wragg, H.


Elmley Viscount
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Munro, P.
Sir James Edmondson and


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Captain Dugdale.


Everard, W. L.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Broad, F. A.
Cove, W. G.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Bromfield, W.
Daggar, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Dalton, H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Dobbie, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Burke, W. A.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cape, T.
Ede, J. C.


Banfield, J. W.
Charleton, H. C.
Edwards. Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Bellenger, F. J.
Chater, D.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Bevan, A.
Cluse, W. S.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.




Foot, D. M.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Frankel, D.
Lee, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Gallacher, W.
Leonard, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
MacLaren, A.
Thorne, W.


Grenfell, D. R.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Thurtle, E.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Marshall, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maxton, J.
Viant, S. P.


Groves, T. E.
Messer, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Montague, F.
Walker, J.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watkins, F. C.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Watson, W. McL.


Hardie, Agnes
Owen, Major G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Paling, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.
Young, Sir F. (Newton)


Kirkwood, D.
Short, A.



Lawson, J. J.
Simpson, F. B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 7.]
AYES.
[10.47 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Owen, Major G.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Patrick, C. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Peake, O.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Petherick, M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Goldie, N. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Pilkington, R.


Apsley, Lord
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Power, Sir J. C.


Assheton, R.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Grimston, R. V.
Procter, Major H. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Radford, E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bernays, R. H.
Hambro, A. V.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Bossom, A. C.
Hannah, I. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hartington, Marquess of
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Heilgere, Captain F. F. A.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bull, B. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Burghley, Lord
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan[...]
Rothschild, J. A. de


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Rowlands, G.


Butcher, H. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Royda, Admiral P. M. R.


Butler, R. A.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Carver, Major W. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Salt, E. W.


Cary, R. A.
Hopkinson, A.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Shakespeare, G. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Channon, H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Christie, J. A.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Joel, D. J. B.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W"m'ld)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Storey, S.


Cox, H. B. T.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lewis, O.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crooke, J. S.
Lyons, A. M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. (N'thw'h)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cross, R. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crossley, A. C.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Touche, G. C.


Davidson, Viscountess
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
McKie, J. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Turton, R. H.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


De Chair, S. S.
Magnay, T.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Maitland, A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Denville, Alfred
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Doland, G. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Donner, P. W.
Markham, S. F.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Marsden, Commander A.
Watt, G. S. H.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Duggan, H. J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
White, H. Graham


Eastwood, J. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Moreing, A. C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Ellis, Sir G.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wise, A. R.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Munro, P.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Nall, Sir J.
Wragg, H.


Everard, W. L.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.



Findlay, Sir E.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fleming, E. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Captain Hope and Captain


Foot, D. M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Dugdale.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.








NOES.


Adamson, W. M.
Groves, T. E.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Richards, F. (Wrexham)


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ridley, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Agnes
Sexton, T. M.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Shinwell, E.


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Short, A.


Batey, J.
Jagger, J.
Silkin, L.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Silverman, S. S.


Bevan, A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Burke, W. A.
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Chater, D.
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafforu.[...]
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, H.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Walkden, A. G.


Day, H.
Marshall, F.
Walker, J.


Debbie, W.
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Messer, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
Montague, F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Welsh, J. C


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Paling, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Parker, J.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell[...], D. R.
Price, M. P.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Quibell, D. J. K.

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.